Parties were ordered to file Final Written Address. The Prosecution Final Written Address is dated 28/09/16. Learned Counsel to the Prosecution adopted the said Written Address as his oral argument. The Defendant also adopted his Final Written Address dated and filed on the 19/09/16. The sole issue raised by both parties for determination is whether or not the Prosecution has proved the Charge against the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt. It is the Prosecution’s case that the Defendant personated a public servant i.e an Operative of the Economic and Financial Crime Commission. That from the evidence adduced by PW2 the Defendant acted falsely or that at best he knew that he did not hold the office in question. That it can be circumstantially deduced that even though the text message could no longer be produced but that the Account Number and Name could be linked to the Defendant. That the link which exist is the GTBank Account Number and Name of the Defendant. Learned Prosecuting Counsel further submits that there are no contradictions or conflict in the evidence of the two Prosecution Witnesses. The Prosecution’s evidence supports a conviction as it leads to only one conclusion that an offence of impersonation was committed and that it was committed by the Defendant. Learned Counsel to the Prosecution also canvasses that from the evidence the offence of an attempt to obtain money under false pretence was committed by the Defendant. That there was a physical act by the Defendant sufficiently proximate to the complete act. The Prosecution contends that the acts of the Defendant clearly point to one conclusion, that the Defendant committed the offence of an attempt to obtain money under false pretence. He finally submits that the Prosecution has been able to discharge its burden of proving the two count Charge. He urges the Court to find the Defendant guilty and convict him accordingly. 7