From the evidence of the Defendant, DW1 he narrated to this Court how his manager informed him that he would be on weekend duty with one Adamu Faruk on the 1gth of February 2022. The Defendant gave uncontradicted evidence of how on the 20th of February , 2022 upon resumption of work for the weekend, he saw that it was Vitalis who resumed for work, rather than Faruk. From the evidence of the Defendant not contradicted is the fact that he, the Defendant complained to his Manager about this development, and even interrogated Vitalis about the fact Adamu had not come and yet the Manager Mrs Tinusa Adegbile gave the go ahead for Vitalis to work with him, rather than Adamu Faruk on that day with no explanations from the lvanager. , From the Defendant's evidence, it was Vitalis who loaded the cash into the ATM machine, when the door was opened, and, after that exercise, Vitalis ordered him out, because, the door had to be locked. Now how much was loaded by Vitalis into the machine was not disclosed or shown to the Court by the officials or staff of First Bank of Nigeria Plc. Then from the uncontradicted evidence, the next day being a Sunday, the 20th of February,2022, he arrived at work and met Vitalis there. The Defendant again told this court that after loading the cash, he, the Defendant was ordered by Vitalis to stay outside. Again, how much Vitalis loaded is not before this Court. This Court is not ready to speculate on that. Thereafter, according to the Defendant, later in the day, Vitalis went out, and promptly disappeared. He stated that he asked the security men on duty about Vitalis, and, the said security men told him that Vitalis had gone out to get a bag. As noted by this Court, it is only the security men who would know when Vitalis left, whether he came back ever, or came back with a bag. These snippets of evidence can only be given by the vital witnesses, the security staff of the branch of the said Bank. The sum of Eleven tVillion Naira is not a small sum of money that can easily be carried away by one man. And, that huge sum of money must be carried out through the gate of the branch of the bank. The security men who would have given these vital pieces of information did not make statements to the police nor did they come to Court to testify either. This speaks of the tardiness of the police investigation arising from the uncooperative attitude of the staff of the Bank. The Defendant also narrated to this Court how he refused to pay for half of the missing money and how he was beaten up physically to make his statement which according to him was torn twice, until it rhymed to the dictation of one lnspector Gabriel" 15