The learned prosecution contended further that the alleged boys of the 1st Defendant, i.e the 2nd Defendant and Solomon Adukwu (now at large) were arrested in the office of PW1 by Mr. Mohammed idris, PW2, an authentic staff of Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and his team based on the petition, exhibit 2 by PW1 to Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) dated 19th August, 2015. According to the learned prosecution, PW2 arrested the 2nd Defendant and one Solomon Adukwu (now at large) when they were discussing with PW1 on exhibit 3 in PW1’s office. The prosecution also referred me to the evidence of PW3 and the confessional statements of the Defendants. The learned prosecution therefore submitted that by the evidence of PWs1, 2,3 and the exhibits tendered in evidence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offences of counts 1 and 3 of the charge and he urged me to convict the Defendants. He relied on the case ADISA WALE V THE STATE (2013)14 NWLR (pt1375) page 567. Counts 2 and 4 of the charge deals with impersonation against the Defendants. The learned prosecution at paragraph 4.0 of his final written address set out the ingredients of the offence of impersonation under section 132 of the Penal Code and then submitted at paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 of his final written address to the effect that the Defendants presented themselves as public 18