I -; ErFroNG y. TIrE srATE (1998) 5 sc (pt. u). That once a confession is not objected to and is supported by other evidence, either documentary or oral, the Court can conveniently convict on it. He urged,the Court to convict the Defendant on the strength of the confession and other evidence before the court, Learned Prosecutor further submitted that the prosecution tras proved its case against the Defendant substantially on his confession as well as on exhibits on record. That a Defendant who gives evidence' in his defenee contrary to his Statement obtained during investigation and admified in evidence in the trial (without objection) cannot and should not be believed. That his evidence at the trial is an aftertlrought. That address of counsel no matter how brilliant cannot substitute for evidence. He concluded that the prosecution has proved its case bqyond all reasonable doubt and urged the Court to convict the Defenclant. on 13tr February 202i, M.o. okoro Esq for the Defendafi,, and K.Y. Bello Esq who appeared with A. Ahmed Esq for the Prosecution adopted their final written addresses. This Judgpent could not delivered within the 90 day period stipulated by the 1999 constitution due to the fact that there were many preelection cases to be heard and disposed of and Judex travelled outside the Division to attend a conference and workshop. No injustice is howev er occasioned to the parties, as I har.e tlie notes as well as the Record of proceedings ,'.,. '<-,\ 14 o