contravening the provisions of Section 17 (1) and (2) of the ACJL of Sokoto State 2019 because the statements were not recorded in compliance with the said provisions. Viewed closely, Section 17 (2) of the ACJL of Sokoto State 2019 in my humble view, applies only where the accused person decided to volunteer a confessional statement to the investigating authority in compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of the same Section 17 of the ACJL of Sokoto State 2019. But in this case, the defendant did not even agree that he made any statement at both the Divisional Police Headquarters, Sabon Birni and State CID Office, Sokoto. The defendant in his evidence-in-chief, testified as follows:“I have never confessed to the crime I have never made any statement at the police station.” With the foregoing evidence of the defendant as DW1, the least that can be said, is that the defendant has retracted his confessional statements. It is trite law that a trial court can convict upon a retracted confessional statement where there are other pieces of evidence outside the confession showing the probability of it’s being true, the opportunity of the defendant to commit the crime, and it consistency with other facts that have been ascertained and established. - Osuagwu V. State (2009) 1 NWLR pt. 1123 p. 523. Page 14 of 19