From the foregoing piece of evidence, the prosecution was aware of the whereabout of Abubakar Himma but in their wisdom elected not to elicit a statement or call him as a witness in this case. I am of the considered view that the failure of the prosecution to call Himma Abubakar, a critical witness in this case put a huge dent in the prosecution’s reliance on Exhibits N1 – N5. For instant under examination-in-chief, the PW4 led evidence and stated thus: “After gathering of these information Himma Abubakar the contractor was contacted on phone and was asked why these payments were made... but he was unable to give any explanation” The Defendant in his testimonies explained that the payment made by Himma Abubakar was to defray the expense he (Defendant incurred on behalf of Himma Abubakar as can be seen in Exhibit W. It is worthy of note that DW1’s evidence in this respect was never challenged nor controverted in any material way. The Defendant in his testimony stated that he was stationed in Ukraine from July to September 2014. All the pilots and engineers were trained in Ukraine. 52 The