defendant. In other words, it is no longer material whether PWI told the police that she identified any body or not when 3he lodged her complaint. It is my inference therefore in view of the light of the totality of evidence adduced st that the 1 defendant participated in the robbery incident at the home of PWl and her sisters. The next question is : Did the 2 nd defendant participate in that rbbbery? In his terse extra judicial statement, he said: "I am from Izzi in Ebonyi State but resides at the above address. I am an okada rider (sic) at Ezi - Elia:; area. I know the said Uchenna Okeke. He is my landlord. Concerning the issue on ground it is not truth (sic) that I took ' part in the robbery in which he is involved in. It is not truth (sic) that I partook in sharing of the looth (sic) they got from the said robbery. I think or feel that Uchenna Okeke mentioned me in the said act out of hatred". From his extra judicial statement as reproduced, it can be seen that he denied being involved. However, the 1st defendant in his exhibit "P 1" mentioned him as a member of the gang that robbed PWl and her sisters. It is settled that a statement amounting to a confession may be used against the maker alone. It cannot be used against his co - accused unless it was made in his presence and he adopted it by words or conduct. See Section 29 (4) of the Evidence Act. Ajaegbo .v. State (201B) 11 NWLR (pt.1631) 484@ 508. It was not shown that the 2 nd defendant was present when the 1st defendant made exhibit "P 1" neither did the 2 nd defendant adopt the exhibit by words or conduct. At the trial, the 2 nd defendant rested bis case on that of the prosecution. He did not testify neither did he call any witness to testify on his behalf. It is settled that an accused person has the right to remain silent and leave the trial to the prosecution to prove the charge against him. This is because the citizen 's right to remain silent even when arraigned for a criminal offence is an inviolable one. The prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. But he runs a risk; he will be obliged to make his defence to the charge if his remaining silent will result in his being convkted on the case made against him by the prosecution . See the case of Igabele .v. State (2006) 6 NWLR (pt.975) l 00@ 133 . In the case ofNwede .v. State (1985) 3 NWLR (pt.13) 444 @455, the Supre~ .- /. / /7 Court warned that: ~ ftX__ 25 J