where he gave his explanations were not produced and those produced had their annexures removed or tampered with. It is curious that the prosecution did not in any way contradict or challenge the said piece of evidence. In MOHAMMED v STATE (Supra) the Apex Court held as follows: “Suppression of evidence in any trial civil or criminal is a violation of the principle of fair hearing entrenched in our Constitution. allegation which must not be It is a serious made lightly. Suppression of evidence is a denial of justice. Once it is established that evidence in a trial has been suppressed, such a trial should be set aside” The question that comes to mind is why would the prosecution failed to front-load the said statement of the Defendant made to STF1 in their proof of evidence? This to my mind goes to show that the prosecution had confirmed the Defendant’s version that some of his statements and documents were suppressed.. In the Supreme Court case of OGUDO v THE STATE (2011) 18 NWLR Pt 1278 Pg 1 at 52 – 53 the Apex court held thus: 45