Kingsley fo defraud people. His name is not Henry Kingsley. He t$t he made an additional statement. That he was following testified a line of questioning by the investigating officer but the information there is within his knowledge. The Defendant was not re*examined, and Defence Counsel closed his case on 161h November 2OZZ. On the lst of December 2022, the Defendant filed his Final Written Acldress which is dated 111212022. Therein, a lone issue is for the Court's determination which is: whether the for'mulated prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt against the defendapt to warrant his convictioR on the alleged offence? In the Wfitten Address, learned counsel to the Defendant contended rthat the prosecution has failed reasonable doubt against the Defendant becausq to prove its case beyond to warrant his conviction it failed to Fove the essential elements of the alleged offence bqrond reasonable doubt. He relied on STATE v. ISIAKTI (2013) T,PELR-20szt(sc) & AwosrKA v. srATE (2010) 9 NWLR (P't. 1193) 49 at 72. It was argued that the prosecution has failed to bstablish the ingredients of the offence ' of fraudulent impersonation for which the Defendant stands charged. Reliance was placed on the case of SUININER v. FRN (2011) LPELR-53404 (PP. 12-14, parns. D-B) on the elements of the said offence. trfrRT$FIffiI} TftUE C.}PY {#ff rfrffi *f Ti{ili mtri}isrt$,,i?} o 10 .16:1 rtl-"i ;.o.-ral ,i . f ', h, r:i , e. Fr;-:+. i ':': , ,." !!