-t
Defendant and did not demonstrate
in court that the documents
printed were actually fuund inside the phone. Thus a doubt arises in
the case qf the prosecution regarding ownership of the phone which
must be rpsolved
TIIE STA'IE
ln favour of the Defendant, See EZE IBEH V.
(Supra).
The prosecution witness also testified that the arrest was made on
the
bases iof intelligence
searched through
report which is in the case file.
I have
the court's file but cannot 'find any intelligence
report therein neither was any such Intelligence Report tendered in
evidencg. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the Defendant
actually received any sum of money into his bank accounts which are
proceeds,
of fraud. P\Ml conclusively stated this during cross
examination, The Prosecution has failed
Defendants intention
to
to provide evidence of
commit the offence and
of
actually
committing the offence.
The testimony of the Defendant during his defence therefore
appears credible. That is, that he was woksn
up from sleep and
bundled into the EFCC vehicle in the early hours of 22"d June 2A19,
where he was told thathe was artested for being a"Yahoo boy." That
he did not commit the offlence for which he stands charged. The
credibility
:.-,r
".-..
"':
of
Defendant's testimony
"i',r'it}
,:
' : r'lt:a'f
;,..-t;..r1:
r;
highlighted
and unconnected evidence.
r,;
H[,{it::
H..
is
:
LL
22
by
the