contained in it. Exhibit H was not used to cross examine Jeremiah Ekpenyong and neither was it used to impeach the credit of her witness.” Okon Amasi who made Exhibit 9 and who the prosecution alleged the defendant defrauded was not called as a witness. It follows therefore that Exhibit 9 cannot be considered as evidence of the facts contained therein and I so hold. Apart from Exhibit 9, the prosecution did not adduce any other oral evidence in support of Count one of the charge. It however tendered the statements of the defendant which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits 7A and 7B respectively. It is a firmly established principle of law that a person accused of committing a criminal offence may be convicted solely on his confessional statement freely and voluntarily made. See IKEMSON VS. THE STATE (1989) 3 NWLR Pt. 110 Pg. 455 and GBADAMOSI VS. THE STATE (1991) 6 NWLR Pt. 196 Pg. 182. In MUSTAPHA VS. THE STATE (2007) 12 NWLR Pt. 1049 Pg. 637 it was held that a confessional statement is an extrajudicial statement made by the accused person to the police containing an assertion or admission showing that he participated in the commission of the offence for which he stands accused. The Court further held that once an accused person makes a statement under caution saying or admitting the charge or creating the impression that he committed the offence charged, the statement becomes a confession. The defendant admits making Exhibits 7A and 7B. The question now is whether the contents of the said statements can be held to be an admission of the offence alleged in Count one of the charge. The defendant in Exhibit 7A gave her own account of the transaction between her and Amasi Okon. She said she obtained a loan of N30million from 14