I l ,,1,,. G.O Otirikpen Esq argued that the totality of the prosecution's i cSse F!r1a!ns to the Iphone ,6, statement of the Defendant ancl tlie documents allegedly printed from the Iphone 6. That the prosecution could however not link the Defbndant with that phone arrci e,riuici not state how many boys were in the house when the raid was conducted even though Pw1 was among the team that made the aruest. It was "argued, relying on the case of ABDLILRAHMAhJ r,/, ODUNBYE' (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 220, that v,,i;i,it ri'rt: prosecution has done in this case is to infer that an offeitce ot fraudulent impersonation was committed by the Defendant but was unable to prove it, He argupd that there are contradictions in the prosecution's case regarding who is the owtler of t.he lphtiric 6, ;,ii;ii that the doubt should be resolved in favour of the Defenctrant. t-le relied on'BZN IBEH vs. THE STATE.(2001 ) 2 ACLR Pg. 376 at 378) ratio 2. It was argued that the BADOO account mentioned in , Elhibits P4 and P5 is alien to the Cybercrime Act,2005 ancl ihc prosecution was unable to prove to the court what a BADOO acsor-ilrt is. That no actual complainant came to the court to give evictcnce as the person the defendant fraudulently impersonated. That tire entile prosecution's case is vague because the prosecution failed to link the Defendant to the chargo, Posits therefore that the prosecution has ' to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt anci urgecl failed tfi6 acquit the Defendant. venQ- ,,t l-t .;,"r $-l . 11"