NWLR (PT.175) 509 AT 527, OJIOFOR VS STATE (2001) 2 NWLR (PT. 718) 371 AT 388 and urged the Court to discountenance the arguments of the Defence since the Defendant had direct communications with PW5 and not through Adamu Aboki and hold that the Prosecution has been proved Count 8Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Also, the contention that the Prosecution also failed to call Mr. Dennis Bobo, who DW2 confirmed is deceased, is difficult to understand. Further, the Prosecution argued that the Defendant’s argument that the evidence of PW5, PW8, PW9 and PW11 amounted to hearsay, and therefore should be rejected, is misconceived in Law. The evidence of Mr. Wubon that Adamu Aboki informed him that the Defendant directed him to raise a Memo for the Purchase of Grains, but that Security Equipment will be Purchased instead of Grains, is not evidence to establish that Security Equipment were actually bought, but that Mr. Adamu Aboki merely said so. He stated further that a Statement made to a Witness who is not himself called as a Witness may or may not be hearsay. It will amount to hearsay and be inadmissible if the Witness reporting it intends to establish through it that such Statement is the truth. However, it will be hearsay and therefore inadmissible if the Witness proposes not to establish its truth but merely to show that such Statement was made. He placed reliance on the case of UTTEH VS STATE (SUPRA), AROGUNADE VS STATE (2009) 6 NWLR (PT. 1136) 165 AT 181 – 182 and Section 126 (b) of the Evidence Act, 2011. Also, according to Mr. Wubon, the Defendant had earlier warned him not to come to confirm any instruction passed through Mr. Adamu Aboki to him. After the Memo was prepared the Defendant signed it, thereby confirming the instruction. As a matter of fact, the Defendant did not deny that he instructed Mr. Wubon to raise the Memo and stated that he gave the instruction to him directly, and thereby confirminghis Approval and Signature in the Memo. The Defendant in Exhibit Z6 maintained that the 139