officers by assuming same when they are not. He then referred me to exhibits 3,6 6 (a),7 and 7 (a) respectively and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and contented that the Defendants by their statements explained the roles played relating to how they hatched plans to approach PW1 with the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) case file and the actual showing of the case file to PW1. The learned prosecution submitted that these facts have been ascertained and proved at the trial. He relied on the cases of ANTHONY NWACHUKWU V THE STATE, (2007) NWLR (pt1062) page 31 and MODUPE V THE STATE, (1988) LPELR 1888(SC). The learned persecution further submitted that the Defendants by exhibit 3 and its contents, was decorated to appear as if it was emanating from the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) which was showed to PW1 in his office and the Defendants were arrested with the file, exhibit 3 in PW1’s office by PW2 and his team. The learned prosecution submitted that the evidence of PW1, Ibrahim Mohammed Bomai, PW2, Muhammed Idris and PW3, Linus Gubi together with exhibit 3 corroborates the confessional statements of the Defendants that the offence of personation of a public officer under section 132 of the Penal Code has been proved and he urged me 19