9 On forensic comparative chart, made during the pendency of trial, the prosecution submitted that it is on record that the comparative chart is a pictorial guide only and does not state anything outside the Forensic Report. On the submission that the Forensic Examiner failed to tender his certificates in Court, the prosecution submitted that it is never the procedure for the expert to tender his certificates in Court. According to the prosecution, the forensic examiner stated his qualification extensively before this Court, and the basis for his analysis and his qualifications was not impeached in anyway by the defence. The prosecution contends that the fact that the expert could not state the meaning of KPMG does not affect his credibility in any way as this Court can take judicial notice of the meaning of same and also the fact that it is not in English but in a foreign language. On the evidence of PW2 that the University does make mistakes, the prosecution’s response on this issue is that, the statement was in response to a general question. On the documents tendered by the defence, the prosecution contended that they are all irrelevant to the case at hand. He urged this Court to discountenance them. According to the prosecution Counsel, Exhibits 1 – 5 merely show that the accused indeed graduated from the University of Ilorin, which is not in contention, nor is it the charge against him. According to the prosecution, exhibit 6, dated 1/12/2008 is a statement made by the accused person, where he stated thus: “In addition to my earlier statement on getting to the University of Ilorin we went to Deputy V.C. and Registrar Academics, they said that the Result I produced or submitted to EFCC that they did not issue the result to me that it was third class issued to me not 2nd class…”