2019 discredits exhibit A and A1 and therefore no weight ought to be ascribed to them. The learned counsel urged this court to discountenance exhibit A and A1 and ascribed no evidential weight to it. It is the further contention of the defence counsel that the confessional statement of the defendant, exhibit A and A1 was not freely and voluntarily given. According to the learned defence counsel, in this case the defendant suffers from mental infirmity and therefore does not possess the requisite intelligence to make any statement more especially when he was alone. The learned counsel argued that a mentally unstable person cannot make any meaning to any statement. Hilarity presupposes the absence of mensrea. On this the learned counsel cited the case of ADELU Vs STATE (2011) 13 NWLR (prt 1425) at 469. The learned defence counsel further stated that in the instant case the defendant had both a medical history of insanity as well as evidence of a family member who has been taking care of him since 2013. The learned counsel urged this court to uphold the defence of insanity in favour of the defendant and consequentially discharge and acquit the defendant. 21