resolve this appeal. Therefore, the two issues for my consideration and determination are: 1. Whether the non-representation of the appellant by counsel at the crucial stage of his trial, did not violate the constitutional right of the appellant? 2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, its case of rape against the appellant? The two issues shall be taken and considered one after the other as re-arranged above, by me. Arguing issue 1, the appellants learned counsel contended that the Court below ought to have adjourned the trial proceedings of 24th June, 2016 when it discovered that the appellants counsel was not in Court to represent him and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses no. 3 and 4 whose evidence were vital. He submitted that the offence of rape, being a serious one required the attention of a lawyer, placing reliance on Rabiu v. The State (2005) NWLR (pt. 925) 491 at 516. He insisted that the appellant was denied of his constitutional right to fair hearing. The respondents counsel, arguing per contra, submitted that the appellant having conducted his defence pursuant to Sub section (6)(d) of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not denied his right to fair hearing. He referred to Okeke v. Oruh (1999) 6 NWLR (pt. 606) 175; Faretta v. California 422 US 806, 95 ct. 2525 (1975), cited in Harold Chase and Craig Duart, Constitutional