Evidence Act, 2011, evidence obtained in contravention of an existing law, is admissible in evidence unless the court is of the opinion that the desirability of admitting the evidence is outweighed by the undesirability after considering the manner in which the evidence was obtained. - Kekong V. State {2017} 18 NWLR pt 1596 p 108 at 135-136 - Haruna V. AGF {2012} ALLFWLR pt 632 p 1617 at 1636 - Ibrahim V. Ogunleye {2012} 1 NWLR pt 1282 p 489 From the foregoing cases, it follows therefore that while the ACJL sets the ground or steps on how statement should be recorded, such statement when passes the test set out in the Evidence Act, it will be admitted as the ACJL must bow to the provisions of the Evidence Act. - Elewanna V. State {2019} 46 WRN 147 - AG Abia State V. AGF {2002} 6 NWLR pt 763 p 263 - AG Lagos State V. Eko Hotels ltd {2017} LPELR 43713 In the view of all the foregoing, this court is of the humble view that since the defendants were duly cautioned but decided to voluntarily made their statements, and there is no evidence before this court that the contravention of section 17 of the ACJL of Sokoto State 2019 was either deliberate or done recklessly and the statements have been declared relevant by section 1 of the Evidence Act 2011, the said statements were rightly admitted in evidence and the urge to expunge them from the record of this court, is hereby refused. Page 7 of 11