one affirms the opposite of the other…for contradiction to be fatal to any case, it must be so material to the extent that it casts serious doubts on the entire case presented by a party against whom it is raised.” - Olayinka V. State {2007} 45 WRN 147 - Akpa V. State {2008} 29 WRN 27 - Eke V. State {2011} 10 WRN 1 - Mohammed V. State {2013} 21 WRN 1 In this case the defence counsel was not detailed in his argument on the issue. He starved this court on the areas of the alleged contradictions in the testimonies and extrajudicial statements of the prosecution witnesses, and it is not the duty of this court to sift or sieve out the inconsistencies as that will be an affront to the adversarial system of our criminal justice adjudication. Despite the fact that I have gone through both their evidence and their respective extra-judicial statement, I am unable to fish out, even with the eagle eye of a court where the evidence of the witnesses are in conflict with essential ingredients of the offences with which the defendants were arraigned. On this premise, the defence counsel’s weak invitation to emasculate the evidence of PW4 and PW5, is hereby dishonored. I so hold. Furthermore the truth of the confession its authenticity and veracity having been attested by the evidence of PW4 and PW5 which is consistent with the confessional statement as earlier pointed out in this judgment, makes the confession truthful and believable, and this court has accepted it. 34