,1x7, no mechonic or engineer con couple truck without test running it after being coupled. This the Defendant foiled to discl ose in his stotern ent to EFCC. If indeed there wos o truck bought by the Defendant ond in existence it did not function ond the PWl wos privy to this bef ore it wos sold os stoted by Defendont, the Defendont hove stoted would this in his stot ement to EFCC. fn this regard, the Defendont's evidence in chief is inconsistent with his stotement to Therefore his evidence in court EFCC. is on after thought, tissues of lies ond connot be believed. Defendont in his ill motivoted def ence which is utterly in bod fqith, clnimed that JERT IF IKD urutY: srox 1ATE -.. W , I(UT ..IUI'I 61 EFCC did not