wants to invest which he got from his brother who is a houseboy to one Oyinbo man in London. He equally confessed how he has gone to the nominal complainant (PW3) and disguised himself as NEPA Staff to check her meter reading. He also confessed to have brought one box to her which was full of fake pound sterling and told her that one Hajiya S.A. Sanusi will come and clean the money for them. It is also the submission that the corroborative evidence of PW2 and PW3 must not be completely the same with the other evidences but must be evidence which confirms in some material particular not only that the crime has been committed but also that it was the accused who committed it. See IGBINE v STATE (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt 519) 101 at 110. On Issue two, it is the submission that Section 28 of the Evidence Act defines what confession is and Section 29 makes such confession relevant against the person making it if it is voluntarily made. The test for determining whether a statement is confessional has been laid down in so many cases. See NSOFOR v STATE (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt 905) 292 at 310 – 311 where the Supreme Court state the condition as follows: (a) Is there anything outside the confession to show it is true. (b) Is it corroborated. (c) Are there relevant statements made in it of facts , true as far as they can be tested. (d) Was the prisoner one who had the opportunity of committing the murder. 9