information as to his whereabouts, but all their efforts to locate Mr. Adamu Aboki failed. Now it is Trite Law that the Prosecution is required to call the Number of Witness or Witnesses who, in his assessment and considered opinion are necessary and sufficient to establish the Charges framed against the Defendant. In the case of ANSELEM AKALONU VS THE STATE (2002) NSCQR VOLUME 10 AT PAGE 1251, PER KUTIGI JSC at Page 1260His Lordship held “how they get around achieving this, is entirely the business of the Prosecution. Whether they field one, two or more Witnesses in satisfaction of such proof, will surely depend on the circumstances of each case. But under no circumstances will the Accused Person dictate to the Prosecution regarding the Person or Number of Witnesses that they must field as Witness or Witnesses”. In ADESINA& ANOR VS THE STATE (2012) LPELR-9722 (SC) PER ADEKEYE JSC, concurred with the above, when Heheld that, on the issue of Witnesses to call, it is the prerogative of the Prosecution to call Witnesses relevant to its case. He further held as Settled Law the fact that the Prosecution is not bound to call every Person that was linked to the scene of the Crime by his physical presence to give evidence of what he saw. Once Persons who can testify as to the actual commission of Crime have done so, it will suffice for the satisfaction of proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt in line with Section 138 of the Evidence Act. See also the Cases of VICTOR ESSIEN VICTOR VS THE STATE (2013) 6 SCNJ PAGE 32; Her Lordship, AMINA AUGIE (JCA) (AS SHE THEN WAS, NOW JSC), IN OSAZUWA & ORS VS ISIBOR & ANOR (2003) LPELR-7295 (CA), AT PARAS A-B stated that there is no Rule Of Law or Evidence, which lays down that all Persons who know about a particular fact must be made Witnesses to testify on the issue before it can be proved. SEE ALSO SIMON VS THE STATE (2017), (SC) LPELR-41988 PER MUHAMMAD JSC AT PARAS E-F. See SAMUEL ADAJE V. THE STATE (1979) 6- 9 SC 18 AT PAGE 28; E.O. 149