10 hereby orders the Court Clerk to interprete his rights to him under Section 287 of the C.P.L. to wit:(a) The right to make a statement without being sworn from the dock, in which case, he will not be liable to cross-examination. (b)The right not to say anything if he so wishes. ACCUSED: I do not elect to say anything, because I want the case to be transferred from this Court. COURT: As I had earlier opined, the Court is functus officio on the issue of transfer and it will not be revisited. I am minded however, in the interest of justice to grant the accused person an adjournment to enable him reflect on the options available to him under Section 287 on the C.P.L or in the alternative file an appeal against the ruling on the application for transfer. Where by the next adjourned date, the accused still insists that he will not elect any of the options available to him under Section 287 of C.P.L. and there is no notice of appeal against the ruling, the Court will have no option but to assume that the accused does not intend to say anything in his defence. The matter is adjourned to 21/7/2016 for further hearing. 11 See pages 29 to 31 of the record of the proceedings of 16/06/2016. On 21/07/2016, Kunle Edun, Esq. appeared for the appellant and applied for an adjournment and the case was accordingly, adjourned to 03/11/2016 for further hearing. On 03/11/2016, Mr. Edun applied for the recall of PW3 by stating as follows: MR. EDUN: My Lord, when I took over this case, I was of the opinion that the I.P.O., PW3 was still in the witness box under cross-examination. However, the State informed me this morning that the PW3 had since being discharged. I hinted at the State Counsel, that I would have wanted that the PW3 be recalled for further crossexamination but the State informed me that she would be opposed to same.