It is in evidence that the said Exhibit P3 purported to have been made and signed by Mr. Sunday Ameh Ako on 2nd September, 1996, was not made and signed by him. PW3 testified that he is seeing Exhibit P3 for the first time in court, and he did not make or sign same. He stated clearly that his signature is on Exhibit P29 which he made to EFCC on 6th July, 2009 and Exhibit P32 which he made to the Honourable Minister, Ministry of Federal Capital Territory on 2nd November, 1993 as Acceptance of Offer of Grant of Right of Occupancy within the Federal Capital Territory. It is clear in evidence that the Acceptance signed by Mr. Sunday Ameh Ako was made on 2nd November, 1993, but not 2nd September, 1996. See Exhibits P14, P25 and P32 being the genuine and authentic Acceptance of Offer of Grant of Right of Occupancy within the Federal Capital Territory made and signed by him on 2nd November, 1993. The evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 strengthen the credibility of the narrative of PW3. As already stated, it is trite law that where an alleged maker of a document raises the issue of forgery, the onus is on the person asserting that same was made by the other person to prove due execution; in other words, where the alleged maker of a document denied making it, the person alleging that the other is the maker must prove. See Fatunde V Onwoamanam (supra) 322 at 334. See also the case of Carlen (Nig.) Ltd V UNIJOS (supra) 631 at 666 para. B. In the instant case PW3 has denied making and signing Exhibit P3 on 2nd September, 1996 but rather he only made and signed Exhibit P32 on 2nd November, 1993. It is equally trite law that to prove falsification (forgery of signature), it is basic that there must be in evidence two signatures, one of which is labeled genuine, and the other stigmatized as false. See the Supreme Court case of Sabiya V Tukur (1983) 11 S.C 109 at 110. See also Section 101 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act which empowers the court to carry out comparison of signature, writing, seal or finger impression with others admitted or proved in evidence in order to ascertain forgery or otherwise. In the instant case, the document stigmatized as forged is Exhibit P3 which the alleged maker PW3 said he did not make or sign. PW3 said what he made and signed is Exhibit P32 which is the same with Exhibits P14 and P25 but different from Exhibit P3. PW3 also stated that his signature is also in Exhibit P29 which is also the same signature on Exhibit P32. Upon a comparison of the signatures on Exhibits P29 and P32 with the signature on Exhibit P3, it is obvious by the discrepancies between the two signatures that PW3 did not make and sign Exhibit P3 which is stigmatized as forged and different from Exhibit P32 made and signed by him. Again on this count, there is nothing from the other side 20