paragraphs B - F on the functions of an Investigating Po li ce Officer, see also OLADEJO v STATE (1994} 6 NWLR part 348 page 101. All othe r arguments made by the learned Appellants ' cou_nsel are as to the reliance of the prosecution on circumstantial evidence . It is settled that evidence of circumstantial evidence is one of the ways of proving a criminal matter, see the case of OKA v STATE (1975) 9 - 11 SC page 17, see also the case of,I PETER v THE STATE (1997} LPELR - 2912 (SC) per ONU JSC, OGIDI v THE STATE (2005) LPELR - 2303 (SC) . The issue of contradiction as raised in page 11 of the appellants' written address is not material as to warrant a vitiation of the prosecution ' s case . I have gone through the cross examination of the prosec·ution witnesses and there is nothing to show that it was discredited so as to make a court not to rely on same . The Appellants are to enter the ir defence as there is enough circumstantial evidence proferred aga inst them that requires them to enter their defence . They are hereby ordered to open their defence in both counts immediately. The Ruling of the learned trial Magistrate i~ hereby upheld . D.A. ONYEFULU JUDGE 3/12/2018 APPEARANCES : ETOMIKE NDIGWE ESQ with E.O . OKPALAOJIEGO ESQ, E.O. UDEANYINYA ESQ and C.A . ONWUASOEZE ESQ for the Appellants AKWALI EDMUND ESQ for the Respondent This is th e Judg~e nt deliv~red by Hon . Jus t;~-~ o.i Ony~f~iu on 3/12/2018 Page 9