interest in same. He submitted that DW1’s testimony is full of contradiction and inconsistency and therefore cannot be relied upon. He submitted further that DWS 2, 3 and 4 testimonies have be discredited during cross examination and he urged me to hold that the prosecution proved the offence of conspiracy to confer corrupt advantage upon relations and associates of the 1st Defendant beyond reasonable doubt and to answer the first issue in the affirmative. In respect of Count Two (2) for the offence of using their office as land officer to confer corrupt advantage upon relations and associates of the 1st Defendant contrary to Section 19 of the Act, at paragraphs 3.87 – 4.13 of the final written address of the Prosecution, the learned prosecuting Counsel adopted his arguments in respect of Count one for count two as it relates to the 1st and 2nd Defendants being public officers, that is land officer by conferring corrupt advantage to relations and associates of the 1st Defendant and submitted that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of count two(2). The third count relates to the 1st Defendant only contrary to section 363 of the Penal Code. At paragraphs 4.17- 4.31 of the final written address of the prosecution, learned Counsel set out the ingredients for the offence of forgery as follows:(a) That the Accused made, signed, sealed or executed the document in question or any part thereof; (b) With intent to cause any person to part with property or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. (c) That the Accused made the documents dishonestly. Learned Counsel then referred me to the definitions of “forgery” in the cases of IMAM V SHERRIFF, (2005) 4NWLR (pt914) page 80 at 162 and BABALOLA V STATE, (1989)4 NWLR (pt115) page 264. 17