“… whether in view of the provision of Section 209(1) of the Evidence Act, the two lower Courts were right to have relied on the testimony of PW3 to convict him. The appellant has made heavy weather of the inappropriateness of the testimonies of PW3 and PW4 in the light of Section 209(1) of the Evidence Act. It is on record that during the trial, the appellant, who was represented by counsel, took time to cross-examine both PW3 and PW4. I hold the view that the right forum for the appellant to have raised an objection to the testimonies of PW3 and PW4 was at the trial Court. It is now too late to complain at this stage. To my mind, the appellant’s complaint, albeit incompetently raised as issue 1, is an afterthought consideration which cannot avail the appellant. See Pius v. State (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 341 per Ogunbiyi JSC at page 372; See also Olue & Ors. v. Enenwali & Ors. (1976) 2 SC 23.” Per OKORO, J.S.C. in ISMAILA KIWO v. THE STATE (2020- LCER-39167-SC) at p. 34