informed this court that he is unaware of the allegations and never committed the offence? Learned defence counsel submitted that the above poses great uncertainty that prevent this court from coming to an irresistible logical and unequivocal conclusion that the defendant before this court is the actual offender therefore the evidence of the prosecution is materially inconsistent to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged offence of rape. Counsel referred the court to the cases of ALMUSTAPHA V STATE ((2013) LPELR 20995 (CA), OGWUNJIMI V STATE (2017) LPELR 42768 (CA). Learned counsel further submitted that the purported confessional statements of the defendant which the prosecution sought to rely upon were denied, she went further to submitted that the defendant in this matter has categorically stated in his evidence that he is not Wadata Dan Jumma, the person that made the statement also that the identity of the defendant was already in issue prior to the commencement of the charge when defendant gave evidence. Learned defence counsel urged the court to escape the web of confusion spun around by the prosecution in this case by their surreptitious attempt to connect the defendant to the crime through amendment of charge to substitute Wadata Dan Jumma (the initial defendant) to Wadata Dan Umma (the present defendant) also that the evidence are substantially inconsistent to support the allegations against the defendant. Likewise, the confessional statement relied upon by the prosecution in urging this court to convict the defendant was made by another person and not the defendant. Since confessional Page 5 of 22