OKONOFUA & ANOR V. THE STATE (1981) 6-7S.C 1 AT 18 AND OGOALA V. THE STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 175) 509 AT 527. Now, therefore, guided by these Principles severally laid down by the Apex Court, the ability of the Prosecution to determine the Number and Quality of its Witness or Witnesses cannot be questioned by the Court and certainly not by the Defence. After all, it is its case and will swim or sink with its choice in the mode it applies in propagating the evidence it has against the Defendant. It is the quality of the evidence it leads that sustains its case. Therefore, it remained the Prerogative of the Prosecution not to call the Chief Detail, Mr. Adamu Aboki, and whether the Prosecution proffered no sufficient proof of their attempt to locate him or not, is neither here nor there to the fact that it is the choice of the Prosecution to call which ever Witness he strategizes, would be adequate to prove its Case as severally held by the Apex Court. Learned Counsel to the Defence had also referred to the failure of the Prosecution to call Mr. Dennis Bobo, the Late Steward of the Taraba State Governor’s Lodge to testify in regard to the claim of Mr. Abdulrahman Mohammed that it was him that opened the Bedroom door to the Governor’s Bedroom for him to drop the Money. Had the fact of the death of Dennis Bobo been elicited from the mouth of a Prosecution’s Witness, the contention by the Defence would have been pardonable. It is ludicrous and utterly preposterous to say the least, that the Defence Counsel is questioning the integrity of its own Witness, DW2, DSP Philips E. Akolo, the Defendant’s Orderly who had stated very clearly that the said Mr. Dennis Bobo had passed on. Since the summoning of Mr. Dennis Bobo whose death was unchallenged, can only be sanctioned and approved by the Almighty God, the Defence Counsel would have to make a Trip to Heaven to ask for his release to appear before the Court. 150