In response to paragraph 2.15 at Page 7, paragraph 4.11, 4.16 and 4.20 at Page 13 of the prosecution counsel’s address, it unchallenged is submitted evidence as that to the how Defendant’s the purported confessional statement were obtained from him by the EFCC operatives puts a huge dent on the weight of the evidence to be attached to those statements; hence Exhibits N1 – N5 and Z7 relied upon by the prosecution as confessional statements cannot qualify as such except it has passed through the laid down test, for determining whether a statement qualifies as a confessional statement. It is further submitted that “trial-within-trial is not the only way to determine the voluntariness or otherwise of a confessional statement. See BELLO v COP (2018) 2 NWLR Pt 1603, Pg 307 at 319 – 320. Furthermore, contrary to Section 36(6) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Section 14(2) and 17(1) and (2) ACJA, 2015 the Defendant was not given access to the service of a lawyer despite several requests by him and even when he had a lawyer from the NAF. This missteps and contraventions of the provisions of the ACJA described 32