-.. ,, "ign the statement. l am minded to refocu s my a11c111io11 on lhal c:,..:hibit in order for· me to determine whether it can altracl any weight. In line with the above evidence by the defendant, hi s counsel submitted th at th e court oughl Lo ha ve conducted trial within Lria/ before admitting or re_jecling the slatemenl as exhibiL Learned counsel relied on Kabiru .v . A.G. Ugun Stale (2008) 49WRN I 00 u I 19 . .I imoh&/ \llllr.v.The Stale (20 I I )3 l WRN43 @ 74 to urge th e court 10 e.\punge the exhibit due lo the failure to so conduct trial within trial . Learned counsel further argued that the confessional statement shou Id b~ subjected 10 corroborative les t in line ,vith the principles /aid down in the following cases : R .\'. Skyes supra , Kabiru .v. A.G. Ogun state, supra, Awosika & Anor .v. The state, supra . Jimoh .v . State. supra , and Ogudo ,v . The State, supra . It was contended that if the statement is sub_jected to the said principles, it ,viii fail. rhc pros ecu tion counsel. in respon se. submitted that the iss ue or admission of th e sta tement is no lon ge r a I ife one si nee the court has ru !eel on lhal. Learned prosecution counse l maintained that exhibit p3 is a direcl statement of admission and that the s ubsequent retraction by the defendant at the trial was an afterthought. The law has a hvays remained by virtue of sec tion I of the Evidence Act, 2011 that once a piece of evidence is rel eva nt. it is ad mi ssible in evidence irrespective of hO\v it was obrained . See the case o!'Olai ya vs . State (2015) II NWLR (pl 1470) 360 @ 377. Of course the ,,veight to anach to such evidence is a different kettle of fish . Flowing from this , can il be sai d that exhibit "p3 " was rightly admitted? Before I ;:inswer this question , il is imperative to sta te that exhibit p3 as a confessional state ment ought lo have been supported by an attestation certificate by a superior office r. Thi s is to confirm if it was made vo luntaril y. This requirement I am awc1re is not 1m1mL:it o1·_v nei ther is il bc1cked by law but it usually assists in ensuring foirness 1 to c.1n accused person over \'Oluntariness of hi s confession . I must once more re-emphasize that it is not at all times and in c1II situations thal once an accused retracts his confessional statement, a trial within tria l would be conducted . lf an accused person resiles from his statement. it is hi s duty lo explain [() the court c1s part of hi s clefrnce the reaso n for th e inconsistency . ln s uch L'ircum~13nces , i !' he is to be belie ved, the accused has to lead evidence to establish th at hi s confess ion a l statement could nol be correct. That explanation should come from him \\ ithout prompting from the prosecution . Even th ough the prosec ution in thi s case did not tender rh e document as J conkss ional statement. the defence counsel oh_jectecl vehementl y lo it s ;_id mi ss ibility. No twith standi ng th e fact that as al the time it w,1s tencl erL·ll. it w:is r1dmit1 ed as an exhibit. However, due to the tes timon y o f the dd t· 11dn111 u11 hnw lie ",J S mude tu !-> it!n it. I \\ ou ld take u ~c cond loo k ;1t th e d1 lcu 1n c11 t. rhis is ln determine the "c ighr 10 ~1tli.l ch to it c1nd not ,vhcth cr the dl> cu111c11t w:.1s 11 rnpcd y :1dmi1ted or not. Pag e i 16