~RAKUL RESOURCE~ LTD VS. N. C. C (2007) NWLR (PT. OS~) . 302 and submitted that the non compli ance with th e provisions _of the_ law renders Exhibit "C" void. The Cou rt was ~rged t~ disregard and expunge Exhibit "C". In his response, in his final written address, the learned counsel for the prosecution conceded that the mode Exhibit "C" was obtained runs foul of th e provisions of section 13(2) and (3) of the Adm inistration of Cri minal J~stice Law, 2010. However, he contended that notwith standing this shortcoming , the probative value of Exh ibit "C" is not thereby affected adversely. It is submitted that the House of Assembly of Anambra State h~s no powers to enact section 13(2 ) and (3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2010 , an area wh ich concerns Evidence reserved specifically for the National Assembly in Item 23 of the Exclusive Legislative List. He argued that the Evidence Act, 2011 at sections 28 - 32 makes provisions on confession and these provisions are the right law to be applied in this case and not section 13 of the Admin istration of Crim inal Justice Law, 2010 of Anambra State. It is submitted also that relevance governs the admissibility of evidence and the moment a piece of evidence is relevant , it is admissible in evidence irrespective of how it was obtained . Reliance was placed on sections 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act , 2011 and the case of OGU VS . M . T. & M. C. S. LTD (2011) 8 NWLR (PT. 1249) 345 . Learned counsel for the prosecution also contended that the defendant having not contested the admissibility of Exhibit "C" on the ground that it was involuntarily obtained when it was sought to be tendered , cannot now complain of non-compliance with the provisions of section 13 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2010. The Co.urt was urged to accord Exhibit "C" probati ve value and to hold that it meets the yardstick of the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act, 2011 . In the first place, I don't think that the submission that the moment a piece of evidence is relevant, it is admissible in evidence irrespective of how it was obtained is well fou nded . I say so because it will not apply in confessional statement where section 29(2) (a) and (b) of :the Evidence Act, 20 11 renders inadmissible confessional statements that were obtained involuntarily. Again, section 13 (2) and (3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 201 0 under consideration provides as follows :"13(2) Where any person who is arrested with or without a warrant volunteers to make a confessional 19