Fabiyi, JSC at page 21, paras. F – G; and ILORIN SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT v SAMAD PAPER CONVERTING CO. LTD (2007) LPELR-8366(CA), per Ogunwumiju, JCA at pages 16 – 17, paras. G – A. Since the Defendant who was arraigned before this Court had all the opportunity to be heard at this trial but opted to jump bail and run away from trial, forcing the Court to invoke Section 352(4) and order his trial in absentia, the Defendant cannot claim not to have been given fair hearing in the circumstance. Having held that the Prosecution had established the two count charge of criminal conspiracy and obtaining under false pretence against him beyond reasonable doubt, there being no defence from the Defendant, I hereby resolve the sole issue in this case in the affirmative and hold that the Prosecution has established its case against the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the Defendant is hereby convicted of the first count of criminal conspiracy contrary to Section 8(a) and punishable under Section 8(c) and 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 and of the second count of obtaining money by false pretence contrary to Section 1(1)(a) and punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006. SENTENCE: By Section 352(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, where a Defendant is tried in absentia pursuant to subsection (4) of the same Section, the Court shall impose sentence only when the Defendant is arrested or surrenders 33