16 10/2/2015 at the how of 9 O clock in the for noon, since you seem not to want to make them available to us. TAKE NOTICE HOWEVER that if you do not make the document available to us on or before Friday the 6th day of February, 2015 or physically bring them to Court on 10th February, 2015, we shall move the honourable Court to subpoena you”. In view of Exhibit 2, I noticed that the University is not willing to clarify this issue by sending the duplicate copy of the statement of result, which the accused person signed before collecting the original. I feel it is only through that this Court should in the interest of justice be convinced as to whether the statement of result, which the accused presented to the EFCC is forged or not. The prosecution to my mind is not willing to assist the Court in achieving the justice of this matter as such I see no reason why the Accused/Defendant should be incarcerated for a fault that is not his. My argument here is that PW1 in his testimony before this said that have applied through Exhibit X and all the documents (that means including the duplicate copy of the defendant’s statement of result) were given to them. Even by Exhibit 7, the deponent in that exhibit, Akanbi Dare, the Acting Director Legal Services Unit of the University of Ilorin deposed on oath that some documents were released to the EFCC among which were the statement of result issued to the Defendant but that particular document was not tendered in evidence. The only document tendered in Court is Exhibit D, which is a copy of another statement of result belonging not the Defendant. If at all, the duplicate copy of the accused/Defendant’s statement of result is in the EFCC custody why shouldn’t they tender it to contradict the one which the accused/defendant presented? The University also is not willing to help in this case, because the defence Counsel, by Exhibit 2 wrote to them demanding the same duplicate copy and they refused to give him. He even urged them to send a copy to this Court at the next adjourned date, yet they refused. I believe therefore, that DW1 showed his innocence in this case through his