Learned Counsel for the Prosecution, Elizabeth Alabi Esq, had cited the case of EMEKA v THE STATE (2001) 32 WRN 37 at 49, where it was held that there are three ways or methods of proving the guilt of a Defendant, which were, by reliance on confessional statement of the Defendant; by circumstantial evidence and by the evidence of eye witnesses. On reliance on confessional statement, Counsel referred to Section 29 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and AKPAN v THE STATE (1992) 6 NWLR (PT. 248) 439, and submitted that it is the duty of the Defendant to raise an objection when confessional statement is sought to be tendered. Citing BLESSING v THE STATE (2015) LPELR-24689(SC), Counsel submitted that where a confession is free and direct, it can be used to convict a Defendant. He pointed out that Exhibit PW2A, PW3A and PW3B which are the confessional statements of the Defendant made at the Department of State Services (DSS) and at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), are direct, positive and unequivocal. He urged the Court to rely on same in convicting the Defendant in this case. Learned Counsel added that PW2 and PW3 had clearly stated that the words of caution were administered to the Defendant before taking the statements. He also pointed out that the statements were not challenged by the Defence when tendered by the Prosecution. Counsel pointed out that in both statements made at DSS and at EFCC, the Defendant had admitted being a member of 419 Group and that he obtained the sum of over N2 Million from PW1. Counsel referred to Exhibits PW2A, PW3A and PW3B and drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the difference in the amount the Defendnt admitted he collected from PW1 in his statement to the DSS and that he made to 6