Now that the coast has been cleared, by virtue of Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011, the onus of proving the allegations of commission of criminal offences against the Defendants is on the Prosecution and the standard proof required is beyond reasonable doubt. I have looked at the evidence of PW1 which I summarized earlier. PW1 is the personal assistant to nominal complainant’s husband. He may not have been the one who issued the cheques in question but from his evidence he participated actively in the transaction and represented the nominal complainant and her husband. From his evidence before the Court, he dealt personally with Defendants in the transaction and therefore gave evidence of what he witnessed personally. His testimony does not therefore fall within the definition of hearsay evidence. Regarding the evidence of PW3, he gave evidence as one of the team of operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes commission who investigated the allegations against the Defendants. His evidence is in respect of what he discovered in the course of his investigation. His evidence thus does not qualify as hearsay evidence. In JULIUS BERGER NIGERIA PLC AND ANOR V MRS. PHILOMENA UGO (2015) LPELR 24408 (CA ) the Court of Appeal held as follows; “What a witness in a case is expected to do is give evidence of what he or she said or did personally or discovered and not what he or she heard or was told by someone else. The evidence of the PW1, therefore as an Investigating Police Officer about what he personally saw or discovered in the course of his investigation into the cause of accident is not hearsay evidence and is admissible.” See also MR. UBONG OBOT V THE STATE (2014) LPELR – 23130 (CA). In the instant case I hold the view that the evidence of PWs1 and 3 are not hearsay evidence and I so hold. Hence the second issue formulated by Counsel to the 1st -3rd Defendants is hereby resolved against the 1st -3rd Defendants and in favour of the prosecution. 28