5. That he intends the forged document to be acted upon to the prejudice of the victim in the belief that it is genuine. See ALAKE VS. THE STATE (1991) 7 NWLR Pt. 205 Pg. 567. In SMART VS. THE STATE (1974) 1 SC 173, Coker JSC held at page 185 as follows: “In Nigeria, forgery consists of the making of a false document or writing knowing it to be false and with intent that it may be used as genuine.” In ALAKE VS. THE STATE (SUPRA), Niki Tobi JCA at page 592 paragraph C held as follows: “In effect, the prosecution must prove that the document was made to tell a lie about itself and the accused person was a brain behind it and knew at the material time that the information he conveys in the document is false and that he intends the false document to be acted upon as genuine anywhere in the world.” The certificate of occupancy allegedly forged is in writing. The next question is whether the prosecution has proved that it is forged. P.W.3’s evidence is that upon investigation by the EFCC on a petition received by it, it was discovered that two certificates of occupancy were generated over one parcel of land. The certificates were tendered in evidence. P.W.2’s evidence is that the two certificates were marked by the EFCC as Annexture A and B respectively and were sent to the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development which is the issuing authority. The Ministry carried out a verification exercise on the two documents and sent a report which was tendered as Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 is a report from the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development on Appendix A and B sent to 18