- Ezeuko V. State (2016) 10 WRN 11. - Nam V. State (2020) 27 WRN 124. The defence counsel further submitted that since by the provisions of Section 36(5) CFRN 1999 as amended and Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011 an accused person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty and the duty has been imposed upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the prosecution has failed to prove its case as required by law, the Defendant is entitled to be discharged and acquitted. - Williams V. State (1992) LPELR 3492. - Abidoye V. FRN (2014) 2 WRN 1. - COP V. Amuta (2017) LPELR 41386. In paragraph 16.0 of the adopted written address, defence counsel also contended that although PW1 said he kept N2 Million in his house and that only his mother was aware of the money, the failure of the prosecution to call her as a witness being a vital witness, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. - Nam V. State (Supra). - Section 14(d) Evidence Act 2011. In paragraph 9.0 of their adopted written address, defence counsel argued that since the incident happened in the night, there was the need for identification parade to be conducted to ascertain the real culprit, but that was not done which is also fatal to the prosecution’s case. He finally urge the court to discharge and acquit the Defendant. - Okiemuta V. State (2016) 45 WRN 109. Page 7 of 21