tenant. He stated that the 2nd defendant came to Divisional Police Station Abagana to seek for his bail. He was arrested and detained by the police. That he pleaded with the IPO that the 2 nd defendant should be released b,ut his plea was ignored. The police claimed that the 2 nd defondant was imp I icatecl in the robbery. Th~t when he was transferred alongside the 2 nd defendant to Awkuzu , he ( I s t defendari t) told the police that the 2 nd defendant is only a tenant. He denied robbing the complainants. Under cross - examination, he maintained that the 2 nd defendant is his tenant and not an armed robber. He admitted making a Statement at SARS , Awkuzu but denied making any Statement at Divisional Police Station, Abagana. He admitted signing a document at Divisional Police Station, Abagana which the IPO there claimed that it would be used in re-leasing him on bail. That he did not know what was recorded. He denied stating in exhibit "D1" that he robbed the complainants. He did not confess to the police that he robbed PW 1 and her sisters. He was surprised that PWI told the police that he robbed her and her sisters. He did not own any gun and he is not an armed robber. He does not know how to use a gun. He learnt the trade of coil but jo ined St. Jude Anglican Church, Adazi Ani as security in order to raise money. That this case was the first time he was ever accused of a crime. He only visits Enugwu - Ukwu but does not reside there. He told the police that he hails from Uruokwe village but works at St. Jude Anglican Church Adazi Ani . He denied participating in the armed robbery attack on PWI and her sisters neither did he confess to the crime. The 1st defendant after his testimony closed his case. The 2 nd defendant did not testify neither did he call any witness. As I said earlier, he rested his case on the prosecution's case. Both the prosecution counsel and the defence adopted their final addresses at the close of evidence. ISSUES FOJ'l DETERMINATION. In his final address, the 2 nd defendant's counsel: C.C. Ezeh, Esq formulated a lone issue to wit: "Whether the prosecution haE: proved the case of armed robbery ag~ a ·nst the1 _ nd 2 defendant?" . _1, ; :; "-- 9 - ,,- I