PW3. On the evidence, PW4 from AGIS or issuing authority stated categorically that it is the only recognised lawful allocation on the disputed plot. The owner PW3, stated that he never sold or transacted business over the land with defendant and infact does not even know him. The critical question then is how did defendant come about this letter of offer he sold to PW2 which on the unchallenged evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 is not genuine but forged. The defendant did not proffer evidence of how he came about his own letter of offer over plot 1528. It is trite law that where an alleged maker of a document raises the issue of forgery, the onus is on the person asserting that same was made by the other person to prove due execution; in other words, where the alleged maker of a document denied making it, the person alleging that the other is the maker must prove same creditably. See Fatunde V Onwoamanam (1990) 2 N.W.L.R (pt.132) 322 at 334 para: C. See also the case of Carlen (Nig.) Ltd. V UNIJOS (1994) 1 N.W.L.R (pt.323) 631 at 666. In this case, the issuing authority of all lands in the Federal Capital Territory vide Exhibit P8 stated that Exhibits P3, t he offer letter which is the same as Exhibit P17 which defendant gave to PW2, the norminal complainant for value is a “cloned copy” and forged. As already alluded too, they confirmed that Exhibit P30, the offer letter dated 25th October, 1993 and issued in favour of Mr. Sunday Ameh Ako (PW3) is genuine and confirms his ownership of the disputed plot 1528. It may be apposite at this point to draw attention to the confessional statement of defendant admitted as Exhibit P9. In the statement, the defendant stated that he bought the land from an agent in AMAC and that all efforts he made to recertify the plot and sell same was in vain, before he met one Mr. Paul who introduced him to one Barrister Fredricks Itula (PW2) who said he was interested in buying the said plot. It is therefore crystal clear, that the defendant knew that Exhibit P2 is fake and or forged and that he did not get same directly from the Department of Land of the Ministry of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja or from PW3 Mr. Sunday Ameh Ako, the real and authentic owner of Exhibit P30 which explains the failed attempt at recertification. It is trite law that extra judicial statements made by a person, are admissible in evidence at the trial of the person, and if it is evident that they were made voluntarily by the person, as in the instant case, such evidence become admissible against him. See Amala V State (2004) 12 NWLR (pt.888) 520 at 549. In law, a confession in criminal procedure is like an admission in civil proceedings. It is the 15