statement or, it is absence, the presence of the suspect’s legal practitioner, during the writing of such statement, rendered such statements impotent and inadmissible. In the instant case as stated earlier, the Defendant led evidence to the fact that he was refused the access of a legal practitioner when he was being interrogated and when he made his statements (Exhibit N1 – N5). Under cross-examination of PW 4, the witness stated that there was no specific video recording of the statement of the Defendant to the commission. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the non-compliance with the provision of Sections 15(4) and 17(1) & (2) of ACJA 2015 is fatal to the case of the prosecution as the said Defendant’s statements are rendered impotent and inadmissible, I so hold. Now on the non-calling of Himma Abubakar/Societe D’ Equipments Internationaux prosecution as a witness. Nigeria Limited by the On this, the prosecution submitted at paragraph 7.3 of his address that the law is settled that the prosecution has no obligation to call a number of witness(es) or a particular witness, since the 50