exhibit A and A1 or rather not to place any weight on exhibit A and A1 because they are being recorded in the absence of a legal practitioner. In the case of AKINWANDE v STATE (2019) LPELR 48378 CA, the court of appeal held as follows: “The appellant counsel argued and submitted that there is no evidence before the trial court that the procedure adopted by the police to obtain the confessional statement of the appellant was transparent. It was not obtained in the presence of his legal practitioner or solicitor to prove that the confession was voluntary. I’m bold to say that there is no any decision of this court or the apex court which stated that any confessional statement not made in the presence of a legal practitioner must be rejected. However if the voluntariness of a confessional statement is in issue and the statement was obtained in the absence of a legal practitioner, then the court will take that into consideration in determining the weight to attach to such a statement”. It is to be noted that the voluntariness of exhibit A and A1 is not in issue in this case. The learned defence counsel only raised the issue of voluntariness of exhibit A and A1 because of the issue of insanity raised by the defence and stated that because of that issue of 25