The Learned Counsel to the Defendant on the other hand submits that the Prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction of the Defendant. Learned Counsel to the Defendant canvasses that the testimony of PW1 has not been able to link the Defendant to the crime. That no ingredient of the offence of impersonation has been proved. That PW1 is not a Witness of truth. That from the PW1’s testimony, it is apparent that the Charge against the Defendant is based on suspicion. That acts that are merely preparatory to the commission of the offence are not sufficiently proximate to constitute an offence. That the evidence does not link the Defendant with the crime alleged. That the ingredients of the offences under which the Defendant was charged were not proved. He finally urges the Court to discharge and acquit the Defendant. It is the burden of the Prosecution in criminal trials such as this to establish the guilt of the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt by virtue of Section 135 of the Evidence Act. In Criminal Proceedings such as in this case, the Defendant is constitutionally presumed innocent until the contrary is proved by the Prosecution. The onus of proof is on the Prosecution and it does not shift. See BELLO VS. STATE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1043) 564. IGABELE VS. STATE (2006) 6 NWLR (PT. 978) 100 SC. In our criminal jurisprudence there is no question of a Defendant proving his innocence before a Court of law. The Defendant is charged under Section 132 of the Penal Code and Section 8(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act 2006. Section 132 of the Penal Code states: “Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely 8