l prepared by the Court Recorder; as such, I have a competent grasp of the evidence adduced by the parties. I have carefully considered the entire evidence presented before I have also considered the Final Written Addresses (issues this therein and arguments) of the parties. The facts of this case reveal that the defendant was arrested by the EFCC on the basis of an intelligence report after conducting surveillance upon the belief that Defendant committed the offences of fraudulent impersonation and fraud. It is trite that in criminal cases the proseculion has the burden to prove its pase beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is expected to establish or prove all the elements of the offence for which the Defendant is charged. Slhere the prosecution fails to establish or prove any or all the elements of the offencq, the charge must be resolved in favour of the Defendant. Similarly, where a doubt arises in the case of the prosecution, it must be resolved in favour of the Defendant. See AMAH v. STATE(2023) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1871) 301 at 3i23, paras. C-D& 324 - 325, wherein the Supreme Court held ,;, t3 .It luttTl s1 q,, t. '"3 ';-r i:'i m {- :E :cLlH i--&r 'lI f? ,.1 {*} ',,. rrB t=a{l '"tit r, r A \r [-_li ilrm :T; 7: T'i : : *1 i reasonable doubt. Before a accused, it trial court can safely convict must be convinced that the prosecution ' ru (A Ee 1i: -.q 0 # f, r'm prove the guilt of the accused person standing trial beyond 1 {:. r' ( L; 'ofn ail criminal proceedings, the prosecution has a duty to 1_5 s an has