In paragraph 1.4 we have submitted that the prosecution has not proved any of the elements of the whole offences. In paragraph 1.5, we have raised the issue of prosecutor’s failure to call the victims, or member of his family to seek for ransom or anything from the US Embassy. The statement of the Special Forces have not been tendered by the prosecution nor the letter of the embassy of complaint was not also tendered. In paragraph 2.1 we argued that the evidence of the prosecution did not link the defendants with the cell phone. In paragraph 2.2 we have argued that call log data base was not tendered by the prosecution. We have also argued that the statements of the defendants are not admissible and urge the court not to attach any probative value to them. The court shall act of the evidence of the defence and acquit the defendants. O. Badejo Esq: The prosecution’s filed written address was filed on the 20/2/2024 and we adopt same and urge this court to convict the defendants as charged. In brief adumbration, in paragraph 5.1.5 we have submitted that the defendants made their statements voluntarily. In paragraph 5.1.10, we argued that there is no law that says a victim must be called as a witness in criminal cases. We also argued that there is no impeachment as to the analysis was carried out in demanding for ransom. In paragraph 5.2.1 the defendants did not address the charges against them in their written address. In paragraph 5.2.10, DW4 demolished the evidence of D2 and DW3 as to knowing themselves. We finally urge the court to convict the defendants as charged and sentence. Page 30 of 31