never seen the 1st Defendant except here in Court. Learned Counsel submitted that there is no deducible evidence of PW1 that the 1st Defendant was the alleged Honourable Commissioner of Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) that called PW1 on the 18th August, 2015 on any of the two mobile phones of PW1. He submitted also that throughout the period of investigation and detention of the Defendants, PW1 was not invited to identify 1st Defendant or at least see him for clarity of identification. He then submitted that there is no evidence showing that the 1st Defendant ever called PW1 on 18th August, 2015 or any other day talk more of making the alleged false statement. Learned Counsel relied on the case OMOYELE V STATE, (supra). Further, the learned Counsel for the 1st Defendant submitted that it is trite law that in every criminal proceeding, the Defendant must be charge for an offence known to law and particulars of the time venue and date in which the alleged offence was committed must be stated. He submitted that in the instant case of count 1, the charge disclosed that the 1st Defendant called PW1 on 19th August, 2015 while the evidence of PW1 was that the 1st Defendant called him on the 18th August, 2015. He then submitted that there is doubt as to the dates the offence was committed and he urged me to resolve this doubt in favour of the 1st Defendant. He relied on the case 24