In the adopted written address, defence counsel submitted that aside tendering the statement of the defendant which is exhibit A and A1, the evidence of PW1 offered no any evidential value to the prosecution’s case because his evidence according to the defence counsel, merely hearsay on the most important issues - sections 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act, 2011 - FRN V. Usman {2012} ALL FWLR pt 632 p 1639 at 1652-1653 Defence counsel further contended that the virus which affected the evidence of PW1, has also affected the evidence of PW2 whose evidence according to the defence counsel has only shown that he registered the exhibits brought to him for registration but did not take part in the investigation of the case, nor did he knows whether or not the exhibits were recovered from the defendant. It was further contended by the defence counsel that the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 lack evidential value because none of their testimony before this court establish single element of the offence against the defendant. It was the submission of the defence counsel that the evidence of PW3 is shrouded with several material contradictions that goes to the root of the charge against the defendant. - Etim V. Akpan {2023} LPELR 44904 Defence counsel also argued that this court cannot rely on the statement of the defendant which was admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit A and A1 this is because apart from the fact that the Page 3 of 12