suspicion nor speculation or intention can be a substitute for a proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is a proof that precludes all reasonable inference or assumption except that which it seeks to support and must have the clarity of proof that is readily consistent with the suit of the person.” In other words, proof beyond reasonable double is proof that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it tends to support and it is proof, which is wholly consistent with the guilt of the Defendant and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. Arising from the above, as rightly submitted by the prosecution, guilt of the Defendant may be proved: (1) (2) (3) By confessional statement of the Defendant; Evidence of eye witnesses; Circumstantial evidence. See the cases of SUNDAY UDOCE V THE STATE, (2014) LPELR 23064 (SC), DARLINGTON EZE V FRN, (2017) LPELR 42097 (SC) AND EMEKA V STATE (Supra). Having said the above, the first Count charge against the Defendant is for the offence of obtaining by false pretence contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act, 2006 and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the same Act. For the prosecution to succeed in proving Count 1 of the offence, the prosecution must prove the ingredients of the offence as follows: (1) That there was a pretence; (2) That the pretence emanated from the Defendant; (3) That it was false; 16