L2 \l meant to sap the free will and indeed sapped the free will of the Defendant. It is only when that method does so that the statement will be regarded as rnvoluntarily and inadmissible. In ogba Vs State Qa]2) LPELR (CA) Irg-zl,Ilryegh JCA at pages tg-ztstated the law thus: "Normally, a confessional statement arising from oppressive question and answers session between the police recorder and the accused is inadmissible in evidence... Exhibit "r' A sober look at does not bear out the allegation that it was the product of specific or selected questions already prepared by the police to extract inculpatory answers from thr: Appellant. consequently, I do not agree with the Appellant that Exhibit "J" was the product of question and answer session between "P'w4" and the Appellant to render the confession in Exhibit ..Ir. In Jimoh salawu vs state (2t12) 20 wRN I @zs-2fi,it was held "It is perhaps necessary to emphasize it is not a rule of our . criminal procedure law and the law of evidence, where in the course of recording the statement of an accused person, a police officer asks questions and records the answel by the accused person therein, the statement automatically becomes involuntary anrl thus inadmissible in law. That was not the ffitr r.{i s$ r: r? tr