that the docuthents were printed from any of the email acldresses stated in Ekhibits P4 and P5, or through a Badoo account. Therefore, despite the contents of Exhibits P4 and P5, there is no link or nexus between Exhibits P4 &, P5 and Exhibit P2: The confessions in Exhibits P4 and P5 lack proof or coruoboration and there is no relationship between Exhibits P4 and P5 on one hand and Exhibit P2 on the other hand. The sole prosecution witness has stated that he does not know Henry Kingsley. There Herury Kingsley is a person is nothing to suggest that living or dead. ' he prosecution has thus failed to prove that any impersonation of Henry Kingsley was done by the Defendant fraudulently or with intent to commit fraud. The prosecution has failed to prove that the Defendant intended to fraudulently obtain the properly or interest in the property of any person who is alive or dead or in particular of Henry Kingsley. Fraud al is a serious criminal altregation which must be proved strictly by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to do this. It is trite that for the prosecution to succeed in proving the elemqnts pf an offence, it must prove the mens rea and actus reus. The charge before this court is personal to the Defendant and does not include conspiracy. There is no conclusive evidence before this Court that the phone belongs to the Defendant (it was not found in his possession) or that the printed documents were printed from that , on failed to link the phone directly to the 1 ;, 2t :, _r .- i,rl,o, f,r.]ri -!:.,- Lffrs.^ a