36(6) (a) of the Constitution requires that “ every person who is charge with a criminal offence shall be entitled to be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence.” The Court of Appeal then posed a question:“ Has the Appellant then duly informed in detail of the nature of the offence? As to Counts, section 36 (12) requires that “ a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefore is prescribed in a written law.” Now at the inception of a trial, the Court is still very far from conviction. Further the requirement is an offence which is defined and with penalty thereof prescribed.” In the instant case, as I said earlier, the particulars of the offence sufficiently described the roles of the Defendants, the law alleged to have been contravened and the law prescribing punishment for the offences. Thus, the objection of the learned Counsel for the Defendants is completely misplaced, misconceived and not anchored on any relevant law or statute and it is accordingly dismissed. Having said the above, by the evidence adduced by the prosecution including the exhibits tendered in evidence especially the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, exhibit 3 and the confessional statements of the Defendants, the prosecution have proved the 51