the only way of challenging the admissibility, voluntariness and veracity of a purported confessional statement. See QUEEN v EGUABOR (1962) (No. 2) 2 SCNLR 289; (1962) 1 All NLR 285 at 29. In response to paragraph 8.1 to 8.10 particularly paragraph 8.5 to 8.7, it is submitted that confirmation of deliveries made under the contract in Exhibit A1 and A2 do not transform the contracts into valid contracts in the light of overwhelming admitted unchallenged evidence before the court that those contracts are not valid. It is the submission that the contention by the prosecution that the confessional statements by the Defendant should be relied upon without being tested and corroborated to gain a conviction should be discountenanced. The Supreme Court has in a plethora of cases affirmed the legal position that a retracted confession must be corroborated by independent evidence. See the case of OGUDO v THE STATE (2011) 18 NWLR Pt 1278 Pg 1 at 26. It is submitted that the only reliable corroborative evidence would have been that of the alleged giver of the gratification Alhaji Himma Abubakar, who despite ample opportunities refused to call him to testify in favour of their case. Court is urged to dismiss the charge in its 34