under cross-examination, Exhibits P6A and P6B (being extra-judicial statements made by the accused person to the EFCC) are confessional in nature and consequently sufficient in law both jointly and severally to ground the conviction of the accused, placing reliance on NSOFOR v. STATE [2004] 18 NWLR (PT. 905) 311 B-D, 313 A-D and DIBIE v. STATE [2004] 14 NWLR (PT. 893) 257 at 286 – 287 H-F. On behalf of the accused person, it is submitted that the charge is at variance with the evidence led before the Court. Citing AGBO v. STATE [2006] 6 NWLR (PT. 977) 545 on the proposition that an accused person is entitled to an acquittal when there are discrepancies or contradictions on material points in the prosecution's case which create some doubt in the mind of the court, B. L. Tebira, Esq. of counsel submitted that the evidence adduced by PW2, PW4 and DW1 is to the effect that the actual amount eventually received by the accused person from the sale of two plots of land was N2.8m less N230,000 paid to PW4 as commission, which is at variance with the charge before this Court that the accused obtained N6.2m from PW1 under false pretences and with intend to defraud, and as such the accused ought to be acquitted. Now Section 1 (1) (a) & (3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 provides as follows: 1. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment or law, any person who by any false pretence, and with intent to defraud: a. obtains, from any other person, in Nigeria or in any other country for himself or any other person; or b. obtains any property, whether or not the property is obtained or its delivery is induced through the medium of a 17 | P a g e