make her finding before the Almighty God who is the Judge of all Judges. A cursory look and consideration of the prosecution evidence is by no means corroboration; they are mere items of evidence raising suspicion. It is trite that suspicion has no place in our laws. See UDOR v STATE (Supra) where the Supreme Court held thus: “The law is trite that suspicion, no matter how strong it is, cannot take the place of legal proof. Items of evidence raising suspicion which put together, do not have the quality of being corroborative evidence to ground any conviction for a criminal offence” In the light of the above and after due consideration of the evidence before me, I hold the firm view that the case of the prosecution is shaky, doubtful and cannot ground a conviction of the accused person. Before I drop my pen, I must confess that the quality of the prosecution is to say the least not impressive. Criminal prosecution is not a child’s play. At this stage, I find it most appropriate to refer to the case of IDOWU v STATE (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt 680) 48; 7 (2000) 7 SC (Pt II) 50; where Ogundare, JSC the lead judgment re-echoed the need for quality prosecution as follows: “I cannot end this judgment without commenting on the poor quality of the investigation, if any, carried out by the police in this case. Had there been a more thorough investigation, the missing link would have been obtained. The quality of the prosecution at the trial was not better either...” 28