- Ezeuko V. State (2016) 10 WRN 11.
- Nam V. State (2020) 27 WRN 124.
The defence counsel further submitted that since by the
provisions of Section 36(5) CFRN 1999 as amended and
Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011 an accused person is
presumed innocent until he is proved guilty and the duty has
been imposed upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, and the prosecution has failed to prove its
case as required by law, the Defendant is entitled to be
discharged and acquitted.
- Williams V. State (1992) LPELR 3492.
- Abidoye V. FRN (2014) 2 WRN 1.
- COP V. Amuta (2017) LPELR 41386.
In paragraph 16.0 of the adopted written address, defence
counsel also contended that although PW1 said he kept N2
Million in his house and that only his mother was aware of the
money, the failure of the prosecution to call her as a witness
being a vital witness, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
- Nam V. State (Supra).
- Section 14(d) Evidence Act 2011.
In paragraph 9.0 of their adopted written address, defence
counsel argued that since the incident happened in the night,
there was the need for identification parade to be conducted to
ascertain the real culprit, but that was not done which is also
fatal to the prosecution’s case. He finally urge the court to
discharge and acquit the Defendant.
- Okiemuta V. State (2016) 45 WRN 109.
Page 7 of 21