defendants contention in those paragraphs and must be deemed to have admitted them. Learned counsel submitted that it is incorrect that the defendant did not object to the admissibility of the alleged confessional statement, the record of this court bears witness to the fact that the defendant did raise and reserve his objection to confessional statement for the final address stage, prosecution argument on this issue is therefore misplaced and false. Counsel submitted that, to prove the voluntariness of confessional statement the law has established that the evidence of witnesses present during the recording of the statement the prosecution called only PW1 and PW2 who testified that the statement was voluntarily made by the defendant the evidence of their witnesses shows that PW2 was not present to witness the recording of the statement, rather it was the defendant is relatives that were present when the purported statement was recorded, but surprisingly the prosecution did not call any of the defendant is relative alleged to be present to confirmed the voluntariness of the statement. Counsel referred the court to the case of LASE V THE STATE 2017 LPELR 42466 (SC) Learned defence counsel submitted that to ground a conviction, a retracted confessional statement must be corroborated by some evidence however slight she further submitted that PW1’s and PW2’s evidence was limited to the process of obtaining the confessional statement PW3 evidence was entirely hearsay, PW4 evidence was materially inconsistent with PW5’s evidence, the confessional statement (Exhibit A and A1 and Exhibit B while PW5 evidence was limited to the tendering of Exhibit B, during which PW5 confirmed the Page 11 of 22