formulated by the prosecution and the 3 issues formulated by the defence counsel and is hereby produce below as follows:“Whether considering the totality of the evidence led before this Honourable Court, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the defendants in respect of the offences with which they were arraigned.” Arguing their position, the learned defence cancel submitted that the offence of kidnapping has not been proved by the accidence of the prosecution witness. Counsel contended further that prosecution witnesses did not visited the scene of crime nor was the victim’s statement taken to prove that he was kidnapping and confined to any place against his will. - Bello Okashetu V State (2016) LPELR 40611. It was further submitted by the defence counsel that the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not link the defendant with the commission of the offences alleged against them as the defendant were neither arrested nor apprehended in the act of the alleged kidnapping. It was his argument that the prosecution ought to have led evidence to show the date communication of the Sim lines used by the defendant to call any of the victim family with specifies time and date but that evidence is nonexistent. It was further contended by the defendant counsel that extrajudicial statement of a defendant that is confessional in nature is generally in admissible unless there is evidence outside the confession that makes it true and that in respect of the case of the defendant counsel argued that there is no any other evidence outside the confessional statement. - Afolabi V. State (2013) LPELR 20700. Page 3 of 13