that the Courts have mandated that the accused MUST be represented by legal counsel. See Nemi & Ors v. The State (1994) 10 SCNJ 1. In this case, I share the view of my learned brother that the trial Court allowed the Appellant to cross examine at length all the prosecution witnesses, particularly the prosecutrix, the evidence of whom he could not shake or contradict under cross examination. Section 36(6)(a)-(d) of the 1999 Constitution in my humble view were not violated by the trial Court. The tactic of a counsel for an accused person withdrawing in the middle of a criminal trial without any explanation to the Court is inexplicable and frankly reeks of lack of professional ethics and competence and is reprehensible. However, that tactics if it were to stall the trial, forgot to take into consideration the specific wording of the 1999 Constitution which allows a defendant in a criminal trial to undertake his own defence or be represented by counsel of his choice. That is all the authorities have consequently held. See Nnakwe v. State (2013) 18 NWLR Pt. 1385 Pg. 1 at 27. In the circumstance, I agree with the findings of the learned trial Tribunal that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of D.O. Oko J. delivered on 23/9/16 in Charge No. HAB/16FC/2015 is hereby affirmed. MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I have read in draft, the judgment of my learned brother TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and