prosecution is at liberty to call any witness to prove its case. In the case of ALAKE v STATE (1992) NWLR Pt 265 at 269 the Supreme Court held thus: “it is generally correct to say that the prosecution has a discretion as to who to call as a witness, it is equally clear that where a vital and or material witness is not called, such a failure would be fatal to the case of the prosecution as in this case”. From the evidence before this court, there is nothing outside Exhibits N1 – N5 to demonstrate that it is true; the only evidence outside the purported DW1’s statements that would have swayed the court or even the Defendant is the evidence of Himma Abubakar or that of an accredited representative of the company Societe D’ Equipments Internationaux Nigeria Limited which is alleged to have “corruptly” offered the gifts identified in the 4 count amended charge to the Defendant. Under cross-examination of PW4, he stated thus: “We didn’t take the statement of Abubakar Himma. As at the last time we know he was in Niger Republic. No officer to my knowledge went to Niger to interview Abubakar Himma” 51