translate version of the defendant’s statement with little or even nothing in law. - Ogudu V. State (2011) LPELR 860 At paragraphs 4.1.10 – 4.1.12 of the adopted written address, the defence counsel submitted that the confessional statements of the defendant are unreliable having contravened the provisions of Section 17(1) and (2) of the Sokoto State 2019. - Charles V. FRN (2018 LPELR 43922. - Owhoruke V. Commissioner of Police (2015) 15 NWLR pt 1483 p. 557. Furthermore, the defence counsel at paragraph 4.1.13 of their adopted written address, submitted that the evidence of PWs1, 2 and 3 are essentially hearsay evidence which is in admissible. According to him, PW2 gave evidence of what he was told by the Fatima Hassan while PW1s 1 and 3 are police officers whose evidence is inadmissible hearsay. He finally concluded that there evidence is not credible as they all fraught with hearsay testimony. - Sections 37 and 38 Evidence Act. - Ojiako V. The State (1991) 2 NLWLR pt. 175 p. 578. - Ugwumba V. The State (1993) 8 NWLR pt. 296 p. 660. - Oladejo V. State (1994) 6 NWLR pt. 348 p. 101. Page 5 of 19