2 the D. W.2. After the evidence of the D.W.2, the defendants closed their case. At the conclusjon of evidence, the parties filed and exchanged written addresses in compliance with the orders of the Court made on the 9th day :of November, 2016. As such, on the 13th day of April , 2017 the learned counsel for the defendants adopted the final written address dated the 10th day of February, 2017 but was filed on the 13th day of February, 2017 and the written reply address on points of law which was filed on the 13th day of April , 2017 as their final argument in this Charge and urged the Court to hold that the prosecution having failed to prove the ingredients of the offences, the defendants are entitled to be discharged and acquitted . For the prosecution , her learned counsel adopted the final written address dated the 20 th day of March , 2017 and filed on the same day as their final address . He urged the Court to hold that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and convict the defendants accordingly. 1 In the final written address of the defendants, their learned counsel formulated one issue for the determination of this Court to wit:"Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt with credible evidence?" For the prosecution , her learned counsel in his final written address framed two issues for the determination of this Court. The issues for determination are as follows :- . ~ . ~ ~ ~ .:::> ~ ,..___ Q .. i ,._':/J -- ~ - _.-:, (a) Whether the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt in proving the charges against the defendants, therefore need no further proof? (b) Whether the extra-judicial confessional statements of the defendants are sufficient to sustain the charge of armed robbery aga_inst the defendants? I have looked at the issues for determination distilled by the learned _counsel for the parties in this charge. On sober reflection on ~he issues for determination as formulated on behalf of the parties shows clearly that the sole issue for determination settled · by the learned counsel for the defendants is similar and related to