2 ranging from the non-availability of defense counsel or failure by the prison authorities to reproduce the accused before the said Court to the non-availability of prosecution witnesses. The matter was subsequently transferred and the same was first mentioned before this Court on the 9th of March 2009. From that date this matter suffered another 41 adjournments at the instance of both sides with the prosecution only able to call in one witness. This witness tendered exhibits “A’ and “B”; the cautionary statement of the accused and the medical report of the alleged victim respectively. The main reason advanced by the prosecution for their inability to call any further witnesses is that the witnesses have changed their addresses or have vanished out of the jurisdiction. Yet the prosecution refused to advice itself on the need to have the charges against the accused withdrawn. Faced by this unfortunate situation, and compelled by the need to do substantial justice in this matter, this Court was constrained to order the closure of the prosecution’s case. The defense then elected to rest their case on that of the prosecution thus necessitating this judgment. In the case of MOGAJI v. NIGERIAN ARMY (2008) 3 NCC, 449 the Court held that an accused person who decided to rest his case on that presented against him by the prosecution has admitted the facts as presented by the prosecution. The ideal period to do so is where the case of the prosecution is porous. In exhibit “A” the accused elected not to say anything to the police and this was recorded as such. In exhibit “B” the alleged victim is said to have sustained laceration on the vaginal wall. There is no evidence as to the cause of this laceration and the report does not ex-facie state who