they called but did not go through to him and that was where she stopped with the surveyor since the accused could not produce him. When pressed further as to whether the EFCC did not go beyond merely putting a call through in trying to ascertain the identity of Surveyor Akinyemi, especially in this era of SIM card registration, the PW3 stated that they did not write to the telecommunication company with a view to tracing Surveyor Akinyemi, but insisted that the accused promised to produce the surveyor and was given ample time to do so; that in the intervening period, they were served with a Court Order restraining them from re-arresting the accused and they did not see him again until this criminal charge was filed. When pressed further by counsel to identify the specific title document her investigation revealed to be fake, the PW3 maintained that they wrote to AMAC and attached all the documents and AMAC’s response was that the entire documents relating to the two (2) plots of land were fake; that investigation revealed that it was the accused person that issued the documents. She conceded that she did not get across to Lugard I. Edegbe whose name and signature appears on the letters of offer to confirm whether or not he issued them but insisted that they wrote to AMAC attaching the documents for them to confirm and AMAC's response was that are not genuine. The PW3 was not sure whether it was the person that issued the offer letters that also wrote Exhibit P4B saying that they are fake, but she conceded that the basis of the belief that the accused forged the title documents is because he could not produce Surveyor Akinyemi. On whether she found in the course of investigation that the accused obtained money by false pretences, the PW3 conceded that the complainant (PW1) did not say he paid any money to the accused. She however maintained the accused person is being held responsible because the title documents emanated from him. 8 | Page