in this case), cannot render such statement inadmissible in considering his guilt. - Silas Ikpo Vs. the State (1996) 1 NWLR 59 SC. - Ihuebeka Vs. State (2000) 4 Sc Pt 1P 203. - Idowu Vs. State (2000) 7 SC Pt II P 50. - Akpan Vs State (1992) 6 NWLR Pt 248 P 439. On the statement of the 2nd defendant, it is trite law that the role of an accused person where he challenges voluntariness of his confessional statement, is to dislodge evidence of the voluntariness by leading evidence that will establish the involuntariness of the statement. - Borishade V. FRN (2012) 18 NWLR Pt 1332P 347. It is also trite law that in determining the veracity of a confessional statement, a trial court is required to take the following into consideration:i. Is there anything outside the statement to show it is true? ii. Is there statement corroborated? iii. Are the facts stated in the statement correct as far as they can be tested? iv. Did the accused person have the opportunity of committing the offence charged? v. Is the confession possible? and vi. Is the confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proved? - Usman V. State (2010) 6 NWLR pt. 1191 p. 454. Page 15 of 22