2013 at about 14:00 hours, the P.W.1 came to their station to report a case of armed robbery on behalf of Oluchukwu Micro Finance Bank. That 4 armed men invaded their ban k stole the bank's money and · ran away on their motor-cycles. As the team leader of the inv~stigators, he detailed one of his detectives Corporal Omini Effiong to investigate the case. He was about to take her statement ·when the D.P.O. called all of them to his office and informed them that the defendant was arrested in respect of the offence. He testified also that the defendant told them at the D.P.O.'s office that they were the people that went to Oluchukwu Micro Finance Bank and stole their money and later ran away on their motorcycle. When they got to building materials market area they were looking' for _a place to share the money when the patrol men sighted them, . suspected them and pursued them . He fell down from the motor-cycle and was arrested with the money they stole from · Oluchukwu Micro Finance Bank. From there they took him down to Ogidii Police Station. It is his evidence that the money recovered was wrapped in Oluchukwu Micro Finance Bank's wrappers and the P.W.1 identified them as the money of their bank. The money, was released to the bank on bond which he recommended and the D.P.O. approved it. He stated that all he said were what the defendant told them and the I. P.O. recorded it and the defendant signed it. I The P.W.2 tendered the Police Investigation Report, Bond to produce exhibit in court and the extra judicial statement of the defendant and they were admitted as Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" respectively. When: he was cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendant, he testified that Supol Okoro and his team were the people that arrested the defendant. It is his evidence also that Supol Okoro is not a member of his team and they did not obtain any statement from ·him or any member of his patrol team . He stated that each of the armed robbers was carrying gun but he does not know the type of guns they were carrying . It is his evidence that the defendant was not arrested with any gun . It should be appreciated that when the extra judicial statement of the defendant was sought to be tendered through the P.W.2, the learned counsel for the defendant objected to its admissibility on the ground that the statement did not emanate from the defendant and the defendant ·being educated has no business for the Investigating Police Officer to record his statement for him. In my ruling on the admissibility of the extra judicial statement of the defendant, I stated that the question whether the defendant made 5