statement on oath paragraphs 4,5,6,7 and 8. He cited OSENI V THE srATE (2OL2) LPELR-7833 (SC). He submitted that the recording of the accused was in line with Section 15(4) of the ACIL 2016. He submitted that section 15(5) of the ACJL Delta State provides that notwithstanding the provision of sub section 4 an oral confession of arrested suspected suspect shall be admissible in evidence' Furthermore, the court properly evaluated it at page L44 from line B of the record and based on this, he submitted that the submission of appellant counsel is misconceived. He cited OGUNZE V STATE (1998) 58 LRCN 35L2, KOLAWOLE V STATE (2015) LPELR-2478L (CA), TEGWONOR v srATE (2008) ALLFWLR (PT 424) L484. He submitted that a court is entitled to act on the evidence of one single witness if that witness is believed given all the circumstances of case; see suNDAY V THE STATE (2010) 18 NWLR (PT. L224) P223, MONDAY NWAEZE V THE STATE (1996) 2 NWLR (PT. 428) 1 AT 13, VTCTOR v srATE (2013) 12 NWLR (PT. 1369) PG. 465 @ PG. 485 PARAS. E- F Furthermore, Respondent submitted that the issue raised by the Appellants counsel that learned judge convicting the Appellants on the retracted confession statement clearly failed the veracity test laid down in line with the case of OGUDU v THE STATE (SUPRA). That confessional statement is made voluntarily by the accused even it is subsequently retracted, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction; the Respondent cited SOLOLA & ANOR VS STATE (2005) SC, MONDAY BlPagn cA.AS.40C.2022 eEftTthfik il''[HUE ftrpv