Defence counsel contended further that the extra-judicial statements of the defendants tendered and admitted in evidence, are inadmissible in evidence. It was also the contention of the defence counsel that the evidence led by the prosecution, did not link the defendants with the commission of the offences alleged against them. Defence counsel finally urge this court to discharge the defendants. - Chyfrank Nigeria Ltd V. FRN (2019) 3 WRN 162. - Bello Okashatu V. State (2016) LPELR 40611. - Afolabi V. State (2013) LPELR 20700. Reacting to the no counsel on behalf of submitted that in defendants which case submission made by the defence the defendants, the prosecuting counsel the confessional statements of the were tendered and admitted, the defendants confessed their participation in the commission of the offences alleged against them. It was the submission of the prosecuting counsel that the evidence of PW2 who gave evidence with respect to how the 1st defendant was tracked and arrested, using the number that was used in demanding the ransom, shows the linkage of the defendants with the commission of the offences alleged against them. Prosecuting counsel finally urge the court to overrule the no case submission and call upon the defendants to enter their defence. - State V. Emedo (2001) 12 NWLR PT 726 P 131. - Tongo V. COP (2007) 12 NWLR PT 1049 P 523. - Ukashatu V. State (2016) LPELR 40611. Page 21 of 31