of the lands allocations committee. The list of allottees were made by the registry and taken to me and I will now take it to the land allocation Committee. The Registry makes the list on my instructions.” As I said earlier, I have watched closely the demeanour of DW6 while answering questions in the witness box. He was not consistent with his testimony and he appears too economical with the truth. DW6 is not a witness of truth. Firstly, DW6 under cross examination by the prosecution when shown exhibit 15, states:“I can see exhibit 15. Exhibit 15 is a replacement and PAX Education is not the first allottee.” On the otherhand, under further cross examination by the prosecuting Counsel, DW6 avers:“I can see exhibit 11 (a). In my statement it is correct that where there is double allocation, the Applicant that got the title deed plan first would be left in the plot and the other given a replacement.” By the evidence of DW6 under cross examination above, DW6 admitted himself that the allocation to PAX Education was not the first. Secondly, DW6 by his evidence, Plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III cannot be allocated to PAX Education Resource because the Plot had already been charted in favour of Fine Trust Academy. The question that begs for an answer is that with all the avalanche of evidence by PWS1,2,3,4 and the admission of DW6 including exhibits 4,5,6,6(a) 7,7(a),7(b),15,18, 22 and the statement of the 2nd Defendant, exhibit 11 (a) why did the 2nd Defendant failed in his statutory duties to do the right thing but instead signed a fresh allocation letter, exhibit 5 (a) to PAX Education Resource? The answer appears not farfetched. From the evidence of DW6 and his statement, exhibit 11 (a) it is not in doubt that the 1st Defendant worked under the 2nd Defendant and served as 46