is a basic principle of the administration of justice which stipulate that like cases should be decided alike” The duty of this court is to adjudicate on the case based on the evidence presented before this court; this court is not a party to this case and therefore cannot tell any of the parties the witnesses to be called. See PRINCENT v STATE (2002) 18 NWLR Pt 798 Pg 49 at 57 where the court held as follows: “The position of a judge adjudicating in a case in Nigerian Adversary System is that of an unbiased umpire. His role is generally to determine from the facts before him whether the charge against the accused has been proved. If the onus has not been discharged it is the constitutional and judicial duty of the Judge to so declare. Not being a party, he is bound to do nothing to promote the case of either party” The only conclusion that has been reached by this court is that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt and for that reason the accused person is discharged and acquitted for the offence of forgery punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code. The accused is further discharged and acquitted for the offence of using as genuine a forged document punishable under Section 366 of the Penal Code. See the meaning of Proof beyond reasonable doubt in the case of ABADOM v THE STATE (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt 479) 1 CA where the Court of Appeal held as follows: 13