"The stories of the 1st and 2nd accused persons are bare faced lies. The 1st accused claimed that he does not know Chief Oke, yet he gave out his own N300, 000.00 to facilitate the clearing of container MSCU 1287231 the subject matter of this charge. I watched the demeanour of each of the accused persons. Each of them displayed the character of someone who would not speak the truth under any circumstance." In the appellant's first statement on 21/01/11 at pages 131 -134 of the printed record, the appellant said Chief Oke gave him a deposit of N300, 000.00 for clearing the container which he in turn gave to Alhaji Ibrahim as deposit for the clearing job. Further, the appellant never claimed he did not know Chief Oke. His claim was that he did not know his address or phone number. His lordship's views are therefore a misrepresentation of the evidence on record. The learned trial judge did not give any indication as to his reasons for his conclusion that the appellant and the 2nd accused displayed the character of persons who would not speak the truth under any circumstances. In the absence of proof of the ingredients of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt, lies by an accused person can never ground a conviction. See Omogode v. State (1981) 5 SC 5. The learned trial judge did not evaluate the evidence led especially the claim by the appellant that he got the bills of lading from Chief Oke or the effect of the failure of the prosecution to put more effort into tracing Chief Oke or adducing convincing evidence that there is no such person in existence; the failure to call two witnesses whose evidence was vital - the owner of Efcrisam Group Mr. Kayode Fashagba whose company was the consignee of the containers; Audu Ismail who contacted the 2nd accused to help clear the containers. No explanation was given for the failure to call these witnesses. His lordship apparently concluded that the appellant and the 2nd accused lied and went ahead to convict them as charged on the basis of the lies they told. In the case of Omogode v. State (Supra)Nnamani JSC observed: "The tribunal ought, in spite of the numerous lies told by the appellant, to have weighed the case of the prosecution very carefully, to determine whether on the totality of that evidence, the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond all reasonable doubt I do not think it did so." The case of the prosecution in this appeal is unfortunately afflicted by the same malaise. The learned trial judge in spite of any lies told by the appellant and the 2nd accused failed to weigh the evidence presented carefully to determine whether there was proof beyond reasonable doubt. I .find it rather strange that the appellant and the 2nd accused were arrested on 21/01/11 but were not taken for a search of the container until one week 'after on 27/01/11. There simply was no proper evaluation of the evidence led in the case by the trial judge. In the case of Mafimisebi v Ehuwa [2007] All FWLR Pt 355 P562 @ 605 Onnoghen JSC observed: