opportunity of Knowledge with respect to the fact proved which may be possessed by the parties respectively.” Thus, by the above provision, in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove its case against the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt. And proof beyond reasonable doubt had been explained by the Court of Appeal in the case of ADEYEME PEDRO V THE STATE (2015) LPELR 2457, Akure Judicial Division thus:“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond shadow of doubt. Therefore, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is so strong against an accused person as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence “of course it is possible but not in the least probable; the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of this will do.” See also AGBO V STATE, (2006) 6 NWLR (pt977) page 545, NWATURUOCHA V THE STATE (2011)6 NWLR (pt1242) page 170 and FRIDAY SMART V THE STATE, (2016) LPELR 40827 (SC). Having said the above, I will now consider counts 1 and 3 for the offences of making false statement contrary to Section 25(1) (a) of the Act and impersonation contrary to section 132 of the Penal Code Cap 532 Laws of the Federal Capital 29