latter day challenge of the processes are unacceptable. He referred to Obiakor v The State (2002) 10 NWLR (Part 775) 612 at 627 F - H; Udo v The State (2006) 15 NWLR (Part 1061) 199. Mr. Okpoko, learned counsel for the Respondent stated that the necessary witnesses had been called in proof of the case and there was no need for any other. He cited Ugwumba v State (1993) 5 NWLR (Part 296) 660; Udo v State (supra); He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal. The above being the summary including the submissions the counsel on either side for and against the concurrent findings of the Court below. The Appellant contends that the prosecution had not established or proved the case against the appellant as required by law, that is, beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons for this view are that the prosecution had not established the three essential ingredients of the alleged offence which are: i. That the possession must be within the knowledge of the Accused. ii. Unlawful possession of the substance known as Indian hemp. iv. That the substance is Indian hemp. Also put across by learned counsel for the Appellant is that no expert analysed the said substance and testified accordingly. That the evidence of PW2, the Exhibit Keeper did not qualify as the evidence of the expert needed. The Respondent, taking a contrary view said all that was expected in proof beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution had been done by them and the concurrent findings by the two courts below cannot be faulted. Section 10 H of the NDLEA Act pursuant to which the Appellant was charged provides as follows.“Any person who without lawful authority knowingly possesses the drugs popularly known as cocaine, LSD, heroine or any other similar drug shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on conviction to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not less than fifteen years and not exceeding twenty five years” Instructive is the fact that at the first instance a preliminary field test using the United Nations Testing Kit was conducted on the aforesaid Indian hemp by PW2, Ibrahim Musa, the Exhibit Keeper in the presence of the Appellant who proved the positive finding for Indian hemp at which he issued the relevant Exhibit Forms (Exhibits A, B and C) bearing the names, thumbprint or signature of the appellant which were tendered and admitted in evidence without Appellant objecting. These pieces of evidence were corroborated by the evidence of PW1, Bitrus Ajiku D. Some samples of the recovered Indian hemp were put in a heat sealed evidence pouch and sent to the Forensic Laboratory for confirmatory Analysis. The Report therefrom, Exhibit “E” was tendered from the bar. The remaining samples of the Indian hemp were tendered in Court as Exhibits D1- 12. From the totality of evidence proffered, a clear link or nexus was made between the tendered Exhibits and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 including the chain of custody of the recovered drugs from the point of recovery up to the time they were tendered in the court. From all that transpired, integrity of the recovered substances and the analysis and report was not impugned. The attempt by the Appellant calling for a special expert whose testimony and credentials should have been put on display at the trial and without which testimony the report would be rendered inadmissible and no weight to be attached thereto remained no more than an attempt. Moreover the prosecution is not expected or bound to call every witness before proof beyond reasonable doubt would be established. See Udo v The State (2006) 15 NWLR (Part 1061) 199; Ugwumba v State (1993) 5 NWLR (Part 296) 660; Obiakor v State (2002) 10 NWLR (Part775) 612. In conclusion therefore both the Court of trial and as affirmed by the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the prosecution discharged the burden placed on them by law and the Appellant did not put in place what could have dented the case established by the prosecution. From the above and the fuller reasons of my learned brother, Bode Rhodes-Vivour JSC in the Lead Judgment. I dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Counsel Adewunmi Ogunsanya with him Mahmud Adesina ……. For the Appellant