“The lower Court I n its judgment at page 248 of the records of appeal held as follows and I quote: “it is instructive to note here that the punishment prescribed the Act for the offence under count 1 is a sentence of imprisonment for a term of not more than 20 years and not less that 7 years without option of fine, but the appellant was sentenced to 15 years for this offence and for the offence in count 2, the maximum sentence is 15 years terms of imprisonment and a minimum of 5 years without option of fine. Again, for the offence under count 3, the maximum sentence is 20 years while the minimum is 5 years but again the learned trial judge imposed 15 years. As it can be observed, that above the sentence imposed by the learned trial judge was within his power and in accordance with the law”. I am of the view that the learned trial Judge, in matters of sentence, has discretion, it is settled principle of law that an Appellate Court will not readily interfere with the sentence imposed by a trial Judge unless it is manifestly excessive or patently. The Appellant therefore has a duty to establish necessary conditions to warrant interference, In the instant case, the Appellant is required by law to furnish the Court with cogent and convincing reasons on why the sentence imposed by the trial court and which was confirmed by the lower court was not judicially and judiciously reached.” Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JSC in PATRICK EZERIKE V. THE STATE (2022-LCER-46643-SC) at Pp. 18-19; Paras. F-F.