account of the circumstances under which Exhibit P6B, P3C and P5B were made and this casts a slur on the voluntariness of the alleged confession; for how else can one interpret a situation in which three adults would make voluntarily statements that are exactly the same, word for word, comma for comma without having to copy from a template! This clearly beggars belief and affords the court the opportunity of taking a vantage peep into what goes on behind the scene during criminal investigations, even as I have always wondered how every suspect invited by the Police or other security agency ends up making so-called confessional statements! This being so, Exhibit P6B cannot be relied upon as the sole basis for convicting the accused, and I cannot but find and hold that Count One has not been made out by the prosecution. Let us shift attention presently to Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the charge relating to the offence of forgery, which is "the act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine" - see Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edition). In Counts 2 and 4, the accused is said to have forged land documents relating to Plots CP 1492 and MF 719D respectively contrary to s. 363 and punishable under s. 364 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Related Offences Act, 2006; whilst Counts 3 and 5 allege that the accused person used as genuine the said land documents contrary to s. 366 and punishable under s. 264 of the same Act. Ss. 363 and 366 of the Penal Code under which the accused person is charged provide as follows: "363. Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury to any person to part with property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be 22 | P a g e