10 \) with regard to "TWT2" which the Defendant was requested to make for clarification, it is my view that the statement having been made by the Detendant at the request of the officials of the tr.F.C.C and not on the volition of the Defendant himself "TWT2" was not voluntary and it is therefore inadmissible by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Evidence Act 2011. See State vs Salawu (2011) LPELR (SC) 25-26. As for "TWT l ", I do not believe the Defendant that the "PW2 promised him any benefit for him to admit what he did in that statement to the authorities. It is in pith and substance, a mere repetition of what he had earlier admitted in Exhibit "A", with which he was confronted and buttressed by his cheque, Exhibit operative "Al" already issued to the Co- . From the evidence of "PW2" and the Defendant in the trial within trial, as well as the contents.of "TWTl", it is not in doubt and I find as fact that "P'W2" put some questions to the De&ndant in the process of him making the statement he wrote in his own handwritten. However, it would appear and I believe the Defendant that the questions put to the Def-endant by the "PWl only had to do with introductory matters and not the substance of the allegation against him. In fact, in his evidence in the "TWl", the Defendant said, inter-alia, when the "pw2" asked of his name, the number of wives, children, where he worked and the place he was from and such other questions, he protested against the interjection but he did not suggest, beyond alleging he told him to co-