confessional statement as same cannot be used against him unless the court is satisfied that it is voluntarily made by testing its truthfulness through examining it in the light of other credible evidence before the court. - Haruna V. AGF (2012) LPELR 7821. - Alarape V. State (2001) 14 WRN 1. - Solola V. State (2005) 11 NWLR pt. 937 p. 460. - Yusufu V. State (1976) 6 SC 167. In paragraphs 4.1.4 – 4.1.6 defence counsel submitted that the evidence given by the prosecution, underscores the unreliability of the purported confessional statement as the prosecution has not led evidence to show that the purported confessional statement was in fact made and signed by the 2nd Defendant and more so that a true court cannot rely on a confessional statement to convict an accused unless the statement admit of all the ingredients off the offence. - Dibie V. State (2007) 9 NWLR pt. 1038 p. 30. - Otufale V. State (1968) 9 NWLR 261. By paragraphs 4.1.13 – 4.1.14 of the defence counsel adopted written address, the defence counsel argued that the evidence of PWs1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 being police officers, are hearsay evidence and inadmissible because their evidence according to him are characterized by either on what they were told or from documents/exhibits they came across during their investigation. He submitted that in law, the only evidence of an Investigating Police Officer (IPO) that is admissible is the evidence of what he saw or discovered in the course of investigation, and that anything show of that, will be declared inadmissible hearsay evidence. Page 10 of 27