the alleged contradiction in the prosecution’s witnesses referred to by the learned defence counsel, it most stated that, the contradictions that the learned defence counsel raised has to do with the original charge sheet however, it is not in dispute that the defendant was arraigned before this court he pleaded to the original charge against him on 7th/6/2023, this trial therefore commence on 4th/10/2023 when the trial was to proceed, the original charge was abandoned, and then the new charge was filed after the application by the prosecution under section 215 of the ACJL of sokoto state 2019, a trial court is entitled to amend the charge before the delivery of judgment in the charge see Case of R V Kano and another (1951) 20 NWLR 32, a decision of the then Supreme Court of Nigeria which was subsequently endorsed by the West Africa Court of Appeal in which it was held that it was permissible to amend a charge after final addresses of counsel but before judgment provided that section 164 and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act were strictly complied with provided that alteration could be made at that stage without injustice to the accused. See also the cases of AYUB & HAN V THE STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (pt 172) 127 and ECHEAZU V COP (1974) 2SC 55 at 69 (pp 16 – 17 Paras EG). However, there is no doubt about it that where a charge is amended, the former one seize to govern the proceeding and remain a nullity and of no useful purpose, the effect of amendment or substitution of charge was to relate back to the date that the first charge was filed and original charge are deemed not to be in existence, the defence counsel cannot therefore claim that there is contradictions on the name of the defendant, since the amended charge contained the name of the defendant as Wadata Dan-Umma and not Wadata Dan-Jumma as the Page 13 of 22