he knew the numbers that constituted expected inc~ming calls that were . . the court was not told. He made some observations with regards to the m1ssmg, keys that were cut. For these two reasons, he stated that he was convinced that it was the Defendant that stole . Incidental1 y, the charge agai nst that Defendant is not for stealing. But more importantly is the fact that this same PW3 did not mention the two people that were alleged to have been aided in committing the offence. Under cross-examination, the PW3 stated . 1 Q - You are only suspecting the Defendant? ·, Ans - I believe he was the one because he woke me up to notify me that the machine was missing. On hi s part, the Defendant denied the charge, insisting tlrnt he kne w nothin g about the stolen items . He maintained and insisted under the rigours of cross -exa mination that he did not knmv the said Tochukwu and Ogbonn a alle gedly the actual culprits. From the totality of the eviden~e before the court, it is clear that nothing was said about the existence of the said Tochukwu and Ogbonna, whom the Defendant allegedly aided . Were they really in existence or manufactured just for this case') This question continued yawning for answer and there was no respite . The Defendant stood his ground on this issue _ As it were, it is doubtful if such .persons existed as far as this case was concerned. How then the Defendant can be found guilty of aiding non existent people, even as circumstantial evidence, I am yet unable to appreciate . The Defendant who was the security man, from inception insisted that he was not the only person that had the keys to the premises . Under crossexam ination, he stated thus ~ Q _- You are the only one that has the keys to the gate padlock? Ans - It is not only myself ......- -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ers having the keys are Chibuzor and lzuchukwu. ' e [i n this issue and that aspect of evidence remained n h HJ H~ tf j,JNE WI DAJE ~&11? /~~~fl.. 6 , CERTI,, OB I . _ U COPY . E. \ PRIH¢1PAL/ t GISTR~R