20 See also Jua vs state (2010) 29. Fabiyi vs state (2013) Lpnr,n Where a confession is voluntary, direct, positive and uneq-uivocal and the court is satisfief of its truth, the court may convict a Defendant on it alone. See Kamila Ys State (201s) LPELR (SC) 14; Ugboji Vs. State (2017) LPELR (SC) 32-33. It must be noted however that while a court can convict on the confession of a Defendant, a confession does not relieve the prosecution of its unshifting burden of proof. It still bears the burden ofproying the offence confessed to beyond reasonable doubt. In Adekoya Vs. State Q0l7) LPELR (SC) 29,the Supreme Court held: "It is trite law on the issue of burden of proof that where an accused in his statement to the police admitted committing the crime, the prosecution is not relieved of the burden. Any failure to discharge this burden renders the benefit of doubt in favour of the Bcsused." See also Taiye Vs State (2018) LPELR (SC) 7. I think it makes good sense for the prosecution to prove first that an offence was committed before beginning to look for the offender or criminal. If no offence is proved, a confession to the commission of an offlence will not avail the prosecution and the court cannot convict on such a confession. There must be stealing to have a thief, there must be armed robbery to have,an armed robber and there must be murder to &{ \ *d LcfY