course of trial showing that the statements were obtained by oppressive means, without going through a trial-withintrial, such a statement will not be considered admissible for that purpose. See BELLO v COP (2018) 2 NWLR Pt 1603 Pg 207 at 319 – 320. The Defence argued that there is nothing outside Exhibit N1 – N5 to demonstrate that it is true; the only evidence outside the purported confessional statements that would have swayed the court is the evidence of Himma Abubakar or that of an accredited representative of the company “Societe D’ Equipment Internationaux which is alleged to have “corruptly” offered the gifts identified in the 4 amended counts to the Defendant. Therefore the failure of prosecution for not calling the said Himma Abubakar or any one from his company is fatal to the case of the prosecution. See ALAKE v STATE (1992) NWLR Pt 265 Pg 269. It is the submission that the facts contained in the statements Exhibit N1 – N5 cannot be correct when placed side by side with the thorough and indeed exhaustive evidence of the Defendant. The confession alleged cannot be true because the statements do not establish or prove the ingredients of Section 17(a) of the 21