It should be noted that the 3rd defendant during his evidence in chief as DW3, denied making any statement at CID office, Sokoto nor thumb printed any. He testified as follows:“DW3. I did not make any statement at CID office Sokoto--- it is not true that I confessed and also not true that I thumb printed any document at CID office Sokoto.” Contrary to the evidence of the 3rd defendant as DW3, PW2 under cross examination, testified as follows:“PW2. It was the 3rd defendant who authorized me to record his statement---- Nobody came for him I.e neither his counsel or his relations--- He was given chance for them to came, but nobody came even Legal Aid.” In his evidence in chief, PW2 testified to the fact that the 3rd defendant confirmed to his superior police officer DSP Salihu Garba that exhibit ‘E’ and ‘E1’ is his statement which he made voluntarily after words of caution has been administrated. He testified as follows:“PW2. The superior officer asked him whether the statement was recorded under duress or promise, but he said he made it voluntarily.” It is trite law that a trial court has the adjudicatory powers to accept and act on a retracted confession where there is evidence before the court tending to established that the defendant in fact made the statement. - State V. Yahaya {2019} 38 WRN 14 32