Then at paragraphs 3.26 – 3.32 of the address of the 2nd
Defendant, learned Counsel contended that it may not be out
of place to say that the 2nd Defendant was charged based on
mere suspicion as there was no evidence linking him to the
offences charged except the fact that he signed the letter of
allocation and the 1st Defendant worked under him.
He therefore submitted that suspicion no matter how strong,
can never amount to proof in the absence of requisite evidence
to establish a criminal allegation beyond reasonable doubt. He
relied on the cases of DUNG V STATE, (2015) 9 NWLR (pt
1465) page 503 at 516 para E, SULE AHMED (alias Eza) V
THE STATE, (2001) 8 NSCQR 273 and AHMED V STATE,
(2002) 1 MJSC page 50 at 65 – 66 paragraphs G – A.
Learned Counsel further stated that where there is any doubt
in the evidence of the prosecution in proving the ingredients of
the offence charged against the Defendant, the Court should
resolve same in favour of the Defendant. He relied on the case
of RODA V FRN (2015) 10 NWLR (pt 1468) page 427 at
486 paragraphs B – C.
He then contended that the evidence led by the prosecution is
tainted with serious doubt since PW3’s investigation is
conclusive from his testimony in Court which is also at variance
with the prosecution’s proof of evidence in support of the
charge against the 2nd Defendant and thus obscure as to how
the 2nd Defendant could have been one of the alleged cohorts
of the 1st Defendant when he stated that he did not know any
of the alleged cohorts. He therefore urged me to hold and treat
the evidence of PW3 as unreliable and thus discountenance
same. He relied on the case of ADELEKE V ASERIFA, (1986)
3 NWLR (pt 30) page 575.
In conclusion on Count One of the charge, the learned Counsel
urged me to discharge and acquit the 2nd Defendant on Count
One as the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the
offence beyond reasonable doubt.
In respect of Count Two of the charge contrary and punishable
under Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related
Offences Act, 2000, the prosecution to secure a conviction
against the 2nd Defendant, the prosecution must prove: 26