It also does not seem to me that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the accused actually forged the land documents. The evidence adduced before me reveals that the Prosecution did not follow through on the lead given by the accused person that it was one Surveyor Akinyemi that gave him the land documents to sell. The PW3 merely stated that she called the telephone number furnished by the accused person but could not get through to Surveyor Akinyemi, and that the accused is being held responsible because he could not produce Surveyor Akinyemi. The PW3 equally conceded that she did not get across to Lugard I. Edegbe whose name appears as the signatory of the offer letters to confirm whether or not he signed them but insisted that they wrote to AMAC attaching the documents for them to confirm the genuineness and AMAC's response was that they are not genuine, even as the PW1 testified under cross examination that it does not occur to him that the accused person authored the letters of offer attached to his petition (i.e. Exhibit P1). In a criminal prosecution alleging forgery of documents, it is needful for the prosecution to call a handwriting analyst to show that the hand writing of the person who is alleged to have forged the documents is the same as the one on the forged documents where the supposed alteration was made, even as the person whose signature or handwriting is forged is a material witness. See ALAKE v. STATE (1992) 9 NWLR (PT. 265) 260 at 270 (per Kutigi, JSC ); WAMBAI & ANOR. v. KANO N. A. (1965) NMLR 15 and WAMBAI v. KANONA (1965) NMLR 15." OBIOMA v. STATE (2013) LPELR-20647 (per Okoro, JCA as he then was). In the instant case, since the prosecution neither called a handwriting expert nor the persons whose signatures appear in the land documents allegedly forged, it is obvious that they have failed to establish that the accused person forged the documents as alleged. I 25 | P a g e