recorded in the presence of his lawyer, or officer of the Legal Aid, or any justice of the peace or any other persons as required by the provisions of Section 17 of the Sokoto State ACJL 2019. By the provisions of Section 14 (a) of the Evidence Act, 2011, evidence obtained in contravention of an existing law, is admissible in evidence unless the court is of the opinion that the desirability of admitting the evidence is outweighed by the undesirability after considering the manner in which the evidence was obtained. In deciding whether or not it is desirable to admit a piece of evidence obtained in contravention of an existing law, Section 15 of the same Evidence Act, 2011, requires a trial court to take into consideration the probative value of the evidence, the importance of the evidence in the proceedings, the relation of the evidence with the offence, the gravity of the contravention and whether or not it was deliberate or reckless etc. In the case of Kekong V. State (2017) 18 NWLR pt 1596 p 108 at 135-136, the Supreme Court held as follows:“A careful perusal of Sections 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act, 2011, reveals that the trial court has enormous discretion in admitting or refusing to admit in evidence any piece of evidence improperly produced or procured in contravention of the law.” Page 18 of 34