From the three (3) count charges with which the Defendants were arraigned before this Court, the Defendants were alleged to have committed the offences of criminal conspiracy robbery and causing grievous hurt while committing robbery punishable under Sections 60, 247(2) and 289 of the Sokoto State Penal Code Law 2019. Arguing their position, the defence counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to lead any potent evidence to prove any of the offences with which the Defendants were arraigned before this Court. He argued that the purported confessional Statements of the 1st and 2nd Defendants were extracted from the Defendants under questionable circumstances render them involuntary and urge the Court to carefully evaluate the statements with a fine-tooth comb. - Hausa V. AGF (2012) LPELR 7821 - Achabua V. State (1976) NSCC74 - Idowu V. State (2000) 7SC Pt II P50 He further argued that for a confessional statement to be reliable, it must be direct, positive, true and unequivocal of facts that satisfy the ingredients of the offence with which the accused person is charged. - Dibie V. State (2007) 9NWLR Pt 1038 P 30 - Otufale V. State (1968) NMLR P 261 It was his submission that the evidence given by the prosecution during trial, under scares the unreliability of the confessional statement. - Daivo V. FRN (2012) 16NWLR Pt 1325 P129 - State V. Rabiu (2013) SNWLR Pt 1357 P585 Page 5 of 22