Francis A. Jirb0-E*q, Learned prosecuting Counsel, filed his Final Written Address on the December 2022. A 15th of Decemb er 2022. It is dated 12th lone issue 'is formulated for the court's determination thetein, thus :, whether th e, prosecution ha s proved its .1,'': case- ,) beyond reasonable doubt against the Defendant to warrant offence? hip,convicfiqn on the'allege{ , ; Learned prosecuting counsel concedes that the burden of proof in criminal c&ses is proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that ol1ce all the essential elements of the offence has been proved or established by the' proseqption, the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Relied on ADA,v. STATET(?008) 13 NWLR (pt. 1103) 149 at t66, ,,,,.. ;. i paras. F-r{ & 167, paras. D-E & FABTAN i\WATURUOcHA vs. , T.IIE $TATE (20L1) 6lIryl.,R (Pt. 1242) I70 atL75, & NASIRU v. THE STATE (1999) 2 NWLR (pt. 589) 87 & NIGERTA AIR F0RCE v. oBIoSA (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt. s10) ZIs atZTs.It was submitted that this case may be proved either by direct evidence, circums tantial evidence or by Defendant's confessional statement. on Section zz(z)(bxii) of the Cybercrinnes (Prohibition Prevention etc) Act, 2015, and Prosecutins ' counsel re'lied. ,..,,V,,1' subrnitted, fhat the elements. of fraudulent impersonation under the Cybercrime Act are that: held out himself to be sorneone he is not i'a^' , x!'t..': i.i" t\f { 1.. 'r "i. nE i ;'r:. ,. 'iti\R) :L,' iii-r' o, I S..ii. r,; rCJ'l (9__ t2 D