Commission (ICPC) stamp and the date of receipt of the petition, exhibit 3 are crystal clear on the face of exhibit 3. Having evaluated the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for the offence of making false or untrue statement, it is clear that the Defendants are persons who make or cause to be made exhibit 3 and its contents. Further, the Defendants and one Solomon Adakwu (now at large) have the knowledge of exhibit 3 and its contents. And by the evidence of PWS1 and 2 and exhibits 6, 6(a), 7 and 7(a) including exhibit 2, the statement was made to PW1, the Director of Treasury, Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), a public officer and in his office, meaning in the course of his official duties which statement are false and untrue. Now I have gone through the evidence of DWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Defendants in his final written address especially his submissions at paragraphs 3.3, 3.8, 3.11 and 3.12 that the offence of making false statement under Section 25(1) (a) have not been established by the prosecution against the Defendants. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that PW1 testified both in-chief and under cross examination that he did not know the 1st Defendant except here in Court. He also submitted that the 2nd Defendant only accompanied one Solomon Adakwu (now at large) to deliver an enclosed enveloped to PW1’s office and that he did not know the contents of the file neither did the 2nd Defendant made any false 37