offender to be Wadata Sahabi it follows therefore the retracted confessional statement before this court has not passed the test of authenticity to show that it is direct, positive and relates to the defendant is own acts, knowledge or intention suggesting the inference that he committed the offence charged. It is submitted that it cannot be used to sustain a conviction counsel cited the case of RABIU V STATE {supra} Finally, counsel submitted that this Hon. Court cannot rely on the confessional statement to convict the defendant as there exist no other evidence, facts element or factors to corroborate the involuntary and retracted confession of the defendant and urged the court to so hold. For purpose of this judgment this court has decided to adopt the sole issue as formulated by the defence counsel with little modification because the issue as formulated by the defence counsel is apt and is hereby reproduced below as follows; “Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced before the court the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the defendant as required by law”. Let me reiterate the long term position of the law by saying that whether or not the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the defendant as required by law, is a question of evidence and application of law to the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court, the offence and who testified before this court. It is the submission of the learned defence counsel that there is material inconsistency in the prosecution’s pieces of evidence, I have considered Page 12 of 22