statement can only be admissible against the maker, and it has been established that the defendant before this court is not the maker, the statement of Wadata Dan Jumma is inadmissible against the defendant and cannot be use as basis for his conviction, more so the defendant has not adopt its contents as his and has firmly denied making it. Learned counsel submitted that the statement of the defendant is inadmissible against the defendant to ground conviction, same having not been proved to be made voluntarily since at the examination in chief of DW1, DW1 revealed that he was tortured at Binji Civil Defence Division, in and that what is worst, although PW2 testified that the statement was read to the defendant in Hausa Language and the defendant confirmed he made the statement as contained in Exhibit A and A1, it is clear from PW1’s evidence that the interpreter who read the statement to the defendant was PW1 and not an independent person, also beyond counter signing the statement by the superior officer there is no indication from the statement that PW2 followed due procedure and protocol in endorsing the statement alleged to have been superior officer, and what is worse it was confirmed by PW1 that the statement was made without the defendant lawyer being present therefore the statement Exhibit A and A1 is tendered inadmissible and ought to be expunge. Learned counsel referred the court to the cases of THE STATE V. EMMANUEL OKECHUKWU MADUKOLU (2) (1972) 2 ECSLR (pt.2) 623. OBUE V STATE (1976) NSCC 107. Defence counsel further submitted that assuming without conceeding that Exhibit A and A1 were rightly admitted, then the effect of defendant denial of confessional statements will constitute a retraction Page 6 of 22