conclusion therein that the appeal is devoid of merit. It has now become a common practice for a party who has a bad case and who has nothing useful to advocate in support of an appeal to turn to the constitutional right of fair hearing even in a most ridiculous manner. The right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the Constitution has two pillars namely audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua meaning that both sides must be given every reasonable opportunity of being heard and no one shall be a judge in his own cause. In the instant case, the appellant had every opportunity to defend himself and full control of his own defence after he was abandoned by his counsel. It is the duty of defending counsel in a criminal trial to ensure that an accused person is never left unrepresented at any stage of his trial. See OKONOFUA & ANOR v. STATE (1981) LPELR- 2489. Neither the prosecuting counsel nor the defending counsel should be absent in Court without a good and substantial reason and without the courtesy of informing the Court in writing. When Mr. A.S. Enyi recklessly abandoned his professional duty both to the Court and the appellant, the appellant took his own destiny into his own hand. He did not seek an adjournment at any time due to the absence of his counsel or request for an opportunity to engage another counsel. Having utilized every opportunity available to him by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and giving evidence in his own defence, he absolutely has no reason to contend that he was denied fair hearing. Raking up allegation of lack of fair hearing is not a magic wand that cures every ailment of a litigant or an accused person. The contention of the appellant that he was denied fair hearing is an abuse of that principle.