investigation activities were carried out. Therefore the crux of the pretence is contained in the text message which was sent to the PW2. The said text message was not availed the Court. Even though she said under cross-examination, she still had the phone but later said she changed phones. There is no evidence that she supplied the investigation authorities a copy of the text message she allegedly received from the eagle eye which contained the GTB Account Number and Name of the Defendant. When the Defendant was arrested, he made Exhibits C – C1. He mentioned the name of one Abu Gwagwada in Exhibit C1. No investigation was carried out in that regard to determine the authenticity of the Defendant’s story rather the responsibility was shifted to the Defendant to bring the said Abu Gwagwada. The Defendant agreed the Account Name and the GTB Account Number belongs to him but that he gave same to Abu Gwagwada who requested for same. The evidence of the Prosecution did not link the Defendant with the alleged text message. The telephone Number from which the text emanated was not traced to the Defendant. It was said not to have been registered. Aside the Account Number and Name, there is nothing linking the Defendant to Count One. It is still our law that in Criminal trials the onus is still on the Prosecution to prove same beyond reasonable doubt. From the totality of the evidence before me, I cannot with all confidence come to a conclusion that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no question of a Defendant proving his innocence before a law Court as society will want the Courts to adjudge at this trying times. In the circumstance, Count I, fails. Count II is an attempt to obtain money from PW2 Dr Precious Gbeneol under false pretence that he is an Operative of the EFCC. The Section under which the Charge is brought does not create any offence. Section 1(3) is a punishment Section for 10