in its absence, the presence of the suspect' s legal practitioner, during the writing · of such statement renders such statement impotent and inadmissible" . The prosecution in the case before me tendered the document to show tnat the 1st defendant actually made the extra judicial statement. I would have expunged the document based on the above decision but for the fact that the 1st defendant himself tendered another of his extra-judicial statement in which he relied upon and referred to facts contained in that statement. It is settled that a party cannot approbate and reprobate on the :;ame piece of evidence. See the case of B.B.Apugo & Sons Ltd .v. O.H.M .B (2016)13N.W.L.R (Pt.1529) 206@254. By his reference to the document in his exhibit D 1, the 1st defendant gave the document exhibit Pl the oxygen to breath again. In other words, the document has become a fact relevant to fact in issue. See section 258 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Galadima.v. State (2016)13NWLR (Pt.1636)357@381. It is therefore admissible in evidence. Even though the conditions out:lined in Section 13 (2) and (3) of Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL), Anambra State 2010, were not shown to have been complied with, the document is relevant in this case. Relevancy is a cardinal consideration in the admissibility of a document. In Ajiboye .v. FRN (2018) 13 NWLR (pt.1636) 430 @ 462 , the Supreme Court gave !he formal requirements of an extra judicial statement. I scrutinized the document. It met all the requirements. The Supreme Court in the same case made it clear that it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to record an accused person ' s statement in the presence of his counsel. However, the Supreme Court's decision was not on the interpretation of the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law which many States including Anambra State have adopted . Therefore the above decision of the Court of Appeal in Charles .v. F.R.N. , supra, remains the extant or prevailing law on that point. In the light of the foregoing , I would be very cautious in attaching any probative value or weight to the extra judicial statement made by the 1st defendant and which was marked as exhibit "PI "unless there are other proved pieces of evidence that would corroborate it. ! resolve the issue partly in favour of the I st defend» . - - (,t 16