nd On points of la w, learned co un se l for the 2 defendant submitted th at the 1 prosecution witnesses did not identi fy the 2'1( dc fenciant. He pl aced reli ance on A:chibong .v. State (2006) 3 Al l FWLR (pt.323) 1747 ; lk emson .v. State ( 1989) 3 NWLR (pt. I I 0) 455 . Counsel cont end ed th at the idE·ntity of the 2nd defendant as one of those who :-8hbed the compl ainants was in doubt. That no identification parade was carried out. He referred to and relied upon Ndidi .v. State (2007) All FWLR (pt.381) 1617 . Also rel yi ng on Bozin .v. State ( I 986) 2 QLRN , 69, counsel submitted that there is a world of difference between recognition and identification . He argued that PWI did not give the police the 2 r d defendant ' s description . That identification is ev iden ce of opinion and such e,1idence is frau ght with a lot of human errors that may result in mi staken id entity. Relianc e was placed on Okos i .v. State ( I 989) 9 NWLR (pt.567) 686 . nd Counsel went on to point out th a·. the PW I te stifi ed that she did not describe the 2 defendant to the police at the time she la id her complaint because she did not identify him. He conclud ed th at 1here is no ev idence fi xing the 2 nd defendant at the scene of the crime except the ex tra j udicia l statem ent of the I st defendant at Abagan a Pol ice s u~ti on ( Ex hib it P l .) He contended that exhibit Pl was rendered impotent by the I ~1 de fendant ·s ex hib it D I an d his oral evidence . That PW4 (IPO) corroborated thi s fac t when he ad mitted that the 2nd defendant was arrested based on exhibi t " PI " made by th e I s1 defend ant and that apa,.: from exhibit "Pl " no other eviden ce implicated the 2 nd defendant. Rel yi ng on the case of Ozaki .v. State ( 1990) All NL R 94 , co un se l submitted th at a confessional statement by an accused is evidence against the mak er onl y and not any other person unless the other person has adopted the statement by vmrds or conduct. He stated that the 2nd defendant fro m the time of his arres t has maintained hi s innocence in hi s ex tra judic ia l sta tement exJ1ibi t "P2.. . Fi nally c,)unsel urged the court to di sc harge and acquit the 2nd defend ant. RESOL UTION OR DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES. ISSUE NOJ Learned counsel for th e I :. i def.!ndant reli ed on Sec ti on 13 (2) and (3) o f the Adm in istration of Criminal Justice Law, 20 l O in urg ing the court not to attac h probative value or weight on e:thi bit Pl (i.e. con fess ional Statement of E - 14