the prosecution to disprove the alibi. See OGOAlJ:' NWLR (pt 175) v. STATE (1991) 2 sog_In IBRAHIM V. STATE (1991) 4 NWLR (pt 186) 399 at 415 Belgore J. S.C (as he then was) stated the law as it appertains to r alibi : "When an accused person raises the defence of alibi in his statement to the police/ it must be investigated. The burden of disproving the altbi is immediately on the prosecution/ once the accused has indicated-that at the materi{ll period of the crime/ he was not the one that committed the crime because he was somewhere other than the "locus deficit /~ Then it is incumbent on the prosecution to rebut by investigating the altbi and failure to investigate may be fatal to the prosecution/~ nd There is no evidence that the alibi set up by the 2 defendant was investigated by the police . The prosecution rather relied on the subsequent alleged confessional statement made by the defendants the circumstance of wh ich they were made remain doubtful. nd A look at Exhibit J3 made by the 2 defendant on 10/2/2015, nd which is the same day the alleged confessional statement of the 2 defendant was allegedly made at SARS Onitsha , shows that Exhibit J3 was signed by the defendant by writing his name thereon while in nd Exhibit H allegedly made by the same 2 defendant shows that it was I' I signed and dated differently creating doubt in the mind of this court as to whether the 2nd defendant made the alleged confessional statement. Apart from the above finding nd confessional statements of the 2 with respect to the alleged defendant, as ca n be seen also in the 14