• I C- In Bassey Akpan A chibong v. The State supra, the Supreme Court per Dahiru Musdai: 1er JSC cited with approval the contribu~ion of Kairihi-Whyte JSC ii Samuel Adaje v. The State (1979) 6 - 9 SC 18 @ 28-29 that " it is our -lw that unless expressly provided, no particular number c r· w-itnesses is required for proof of any fact., see section 1 8 (1) Evidence Act Cap 62 .. . where the defence desires t, by the pr His Lordship conclL and the PW3 's StatE the credibility of witnesses . The pn investigating Police it is my view that e' investigation would to one side partict herein, Defendant fL must therefore agre call a particular prosecution witness not called secution, he is perfectly free to do so" . led that the absence of the evidence of the IPO nent to the Police die! not .. weaken howsoever, the evidence a dduced by the prosecution .; ecution is therefore not bound to call Lhe )fficer ~1s a witn ess . I-Iowever in the instant case idence of the independent findings from Police ·1ave undoubt e dly tilted the weight of evidence arly when contrc1ry to th e evidence of PW3 tly denied there W3S any fight and/or beating. I · with Defendant's learned Counsel that failure of the prosecution. t, adduce evidence of Police investigation in this heinous offence wit case . I which Defendant is char:gecl is fatal to their Now in the circurnst nces of this case can the Prosecution be said to have proved beyond ~easonable doubt that Defendant murdered her brother, the decease l Ph.i lip Meka? The paucity of evidence led in this case leaves me , 1ith no choice other than to find and hold that the prosecution did 1ot prove all the ingredients of the offence of murder, which must .:o -e~ist at the same time therefore I hold that ,( 9 I (P,J"_: