(video recording). That this contradicted section 15(4) of the Delta State Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2017' Counsel submitted that exhibit P3 was not carried out simultaneously with exhibit Pl and that corroboration of the statement was needed, which must be fresh and independently obtained. He cited MOHAMMED V STATE (2020) 17 NWLR (PT. t73) 252 N 27L, OGUDU V STATE (2012) All FWLR (PT 629) 1111 AT 1129 PAR F-C, BRIGHT V STATE 2OL2) LPELR-7841 (SC) He further argued that the signature and hand writing of the Appellant was not the same as in his oath and Notice of appeal at page 96 and 154 of the V HASTON (NIG) LTD (1997) 8 NWLR (PT. 515) 110 AT L25'L26 PAR H-A, OGHENEOVU V FEDERAL REPUBLTC OF NrG (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 667) 7O4 Nt record of appeal. He cited ACB PLC 737-7330, GUDU V STATE (SUPRA), EDTLCO (NrG) LTD V UBA PLC (2OOO) FWLR (PT 21) 792, OGOALA V STATE (aOO9)7ACLR 3s7 AT 492. He contended that exhibit P was not played or openly demonstrated in court and therefore a result of private investigation of the learned judge in the comfort of his chambers. He cited MAKU V AL-MAKURA (2016) 5 NWLR (PT. 15Os) 20;{ MOHAMMED V STATE (2021) 6 NWLR (PT' L77L) 123 AT 153 PAR A-8, NDrDI V STATE (2OO7) 13 NWLR (PT 1052) AT 659 PAR C-D. Appellant counsel argued that the P3 was not made in the presence of a legal practitioner of his choice, its therefore not in line with Delta state 4lPagc cA.AS.40C.2022 '\t $