- Azubuike V. State (2021) 11 NWLR pt 1786 p 47. Defence Counsel also contended that the identity of the defendant is not clear because by the oral evidence of the defendant as DW1 and Exhibit C, the name of the defendant is Bilal Mohammed and not Bilal Ibrahim and no evidence was led by the prosecution to establish that the defendant was the same accused and this has created a doubt which should be resolved in favour of the defendant. - Hausa V. State (Supra). In relation to Exhibits B and B1 which are the extrajudicial statement of the defendant and which was admitted as Exhibits B and B1 for Hausa and English translated versions, it was the submission of the learned defence counsel that the said statement was not recorded by the recording officer in compliance with the requirement of Section 17 of the Sokoto State ACJL, 2019 because PW3 through whom the statement was tendered did not testify to the fact that the statement of the defendant was recorded in the presence of his lawyer, or officer of the legal aid, or any justice of the peace or any other person needed to be present to witness the recording process and concluded by urging the court to discountenanced Exhibit B and B1. Page 7 of 34