Abubakar, 2) He argued that PW1 and PW2’s evidence were based on what Alhaji Tutare told them, and therefore the Court should not act on it and the Third Challenge was 3) when there was a narration of the Defendant’s purported interest in the Property Purchased by Ibrahim Abubakar from one Imam Ahmed, who was neither invited nor called throughout the investigation and the actual trial of the case and therefore what was relayed, was hearsay evidence. The 4th and final contention was 4) when he argued that the Extra-Judicial Statement of Ibrahim Abubakar in Exhibit Z7 did not support the case of the Prosecution, as the Statement was based on what Ibrahim Abubakar heard from Imam Ahmed on the Purchase of the Property. Imam Ahmed was not called by the Prosecution, thereby making the Statement, Documentary Hearsay. It is clear that Oral Evidence must be direct and if it refers to a Fact, which could be heard, means that it must be the Evidence of a Witness who says he/she heard it. The Hearsay Rule makes Statements other than those made in Oral Evidence inadmissible to prove the Truth of the matters stated. The Purpose of the Statement must be considered rather than its Form to fall under any exception and the Court must examine whether the purpose was to cause another Person to believe the matter in the Statement or whether it was to cause another Person to act on the basis that the matter is as stated. Where the Statement was not intended to assert the matter sought to be proved by adducing the Statement, albeit in an Assertive Form, and where there was no purpose in inducing belief in the matter asserted such as a Private Entry in a Personal Diary, then it falls under the exception of Hearsay. See the Cases of R VS LEONARD (2009) EWCA CRIM 1251; R VS KNIGHT (2007) EWCA CRIM 3027. Now, the Evidence of Hauwa Kulu as to Payments and also the contention that the Evidence of the PW1 and PW2 were based on what Alhaji Tutare told them were on the face of it, hearsay evidence but it is clear that Alhaji Tutare himself when testifying before the Court confirmed their evidence. The Hearsay Evidence would have been excluded from Consideration but the 263