There is also the contention by the Defendants’ Counsel that the failure to call the nominal complainant i.e one Mrs. Sonia victor and her husband one Mr. victor is fatal to the prosecution’s case. Now the law imposes no obligation on the prosecution to call any number of witness to prove its case. All it needs to do is to call enough material witnesses to prove its case, and in so doing, it has a discretion in the matter. See the cases of UDO V STATE (2006) 15 NWLR (pt1001) Page 179 and IMHANRIA V NIGERIA ARMY (2007) 14 NWLR (pt 1053)page 76. It is not also the law that a nominal complainant must personally testify in a case. Where there is enough material evidence to establish or prove the case then the presence of the nominal complainant can be dispensed with. See UGWU V STATE (1998)7 NWLR (pt 558. Page 397. The proper question is therefore not whether the mere failure to bring the nominal complainant to testify before this Court is fatal to the prosecution’s case; but whether there is sufficient material evidence adduced to prove the charges before this Court beyond reasonable doubt? In the instant case the nominal complainant did not appear before this Court to give evidence. This brings me to exhibit 7 which was admitted in evidence at trial as the nominal complainant’s extra- judicial statement to the Economic and Financial Crime Commission. While exhibit 7 is admissible in law, the weight to be attached to same is a different matter which must be considered by this Court as it is the law that the mere fact that a document is admissible does not mean weight must ipso facto be ascribed to it. See OKECHUKWU NWESI V THE STATE (2011) LPELR 4649 (CA). Exhibit 7 was at trial admitted in evidence as the nominal complainant’s extra-judicial statement to the Economic and Financial Crime Commission. She however did not appear to give evidence at the trial of this matter. PW3 stated that he discovered she was in America for her Master program when he tried to secure her attendance in Court. What then is the weight to be attached to her statement (exhibit 7) before this Court? The position of the law is that such statement must amount to naught. See EKPEN YONG V STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (pt 200) 29