the robbery. Furthermore th . bb · ' ere 1s this · ro ery . incident. The defence couns~~sue whether a weapon was used in the prosecution to tender the made fuss about the fa"l this stance . weapon or gun used in the robbe i ure . of the . cannot be nght in the light of th I am of the view that regarding the weapon A c: e explanation given by_the PW4 . . · part lfom that the · . . 1 prosecution in order to prove or e t bl . h : re is no law insisting that the . s a is its case must 1 a ways tender weapon or g un use d in a robbery . It larg 1 d · · e Y epends on the facts d · giver: case. See Agugua v St t an circumstances of each The D\Vl, . . . . . a e supra@280 - 289. s extra Judicial statement that he and h " committing the act and wh'l th is men used a ply wood or stick in Primary School E i e ey W•~re escaping, threw away the stick at Uruokwe ~- · ' nugwu Ukwu comes int fi r b police to go fishing for th t· k o ocus. t ecame impossible for the e s 1c or plywood. I further • , . : Did . the prosecution prove or . h hasked myself the u 1tlm<tte question est a.bl 1s t at the offenc e o f arme d robbery was committed? PWl, PW2 and PW3 testified that a gun was use d m · th at operation. . . fact was not contradicted This Rather . e~h'b ' Pl admitted · · -r , DWl . _in i it usmg the stick or ply wood in the robbery .. 1:'· he P_W 4 m his evidence stated that the police found or came to the conclusion that an obJect was used in the robbery op1:!ration. It is clear that ,~~idence abound that at the time of the robbery operation, the victims were fright~ned at the sight of what one of the robbers held and pretended that it was a gun. Therefore, the stick or ply vvood was a weapon in the eye of the law. See the case ofEkpo .v . State (2018) 12 .1 NWLR (pt.1634) 408 @418. The next question is : amongst the robbers who was in pos~ession of the weapon? nd PWl, who bore the brunt of the robbery, stated that the 2 defendant was in possession of the gun. That it was he that pointed the gun at her. I held earlier that the participation of the 2 nd defendant is doubtful on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish his identity. The 1st defendant's confessional statement in exhibit Pl, his subsequent reaffirmation of his confession in exhibit Dl and other proved or ascertained or corroborative pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses showed that he could be in company of one of the robbers who was arm.ed with a weapon but it is doubtful if the weapon was actually deployed or used on the day of the operation .. See the case of Sunday .v. State, supra. Us.~g .v. State supra .In additiorJ, I still entertained doubt in my mind over exhibit Pl 1 because of the non compliance with the extant law; even though, h~ 27 ! 1 __::::;,,/