11 !- operate so that things will be easy for him (which I do not believj anything of substance relating to the charge which the "PW?" questioned him about. Undoubtedly, it has been held in several cases, including decisions of the Apex Court, that a confession recorded by a question and answer session may not be regarded as free and voluntary. See Namsoh Vs State (1993) 6 SCNJ (Pt 1) 55 @ 66-77 where Kutugi JSC (as he then was) observed: "Exhibit 66H" was a product of the questions and answer section between the two of them, the police recorder "PWT" . was putting questions already prepared by his superior on a sheet of paper to the Appellant, while the'?W7" also recorded the answers. This procedure is already wrong ... I cannot see horv a statement such as Exhibit o'H" herein will be regarded as free and voluntary when it is evide,nt that the so called evidence was as a result of questions selected and put to the accused by the police officer himself' See as Salawu Ys State (2009) LPELR (CA) 41-42. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I do not understand the law on the point to mean that whenever an officer asks a Defendant any question and he answers in the process of recording a statement from him, it automatically renders the statement involuntary and inadmissible. It .- musl necessarily depend on whether the questions are oppressive and d