As to his submission that the statement was a product of questions and answer session, that submission could be sustained as questions and answer session is different form an interview and it is only when the statement is admitted that the court can determine from the flow of it whether it was in question and answer session. As to the issue of name that the names are different, you cannot write a name different from the way a person wants to write his name especially where he has the right to respond without any coercing. The names are the same and one person. The issue of how a person chooses to right his name, is entirely his discretion. The change bears Dahiru Mohammed is one and the same with the name written on the statement sought to be tendered. The issue of whether surname come first or not is not relevant to the issue of admissibility, we therefore submit that the issue raised by the defence counsel is baseless. This court is urge to take judicial notice of custom and practice that sometimes people write their surname first before their name in respect of the ones Dahiru Mohammed and Muhammed Dahiru. The argument that the name of the person authorized to write is not the same with the name of the person who signed is baseless because it was not the responsibility of the EFCC to direct the defendant to write the full name of his friend that he brought to record his statement for him. It is also not the responsibility of the EFCC to demand an order that the friend of the defendant who recorded the statement to write the exact way the defendant wrote it as doing that will amount to coercion and involuntariness. Is not in everything that a person writes his full names as the names Umar Muhammed Muhammed Yabo is the same with Umar Muhammed Yabo. The case of Atiku V. INEC (2020) is relevant on this part because in that case, the issue was whether Mohammed and Page 23 of 43