In arguing the appeal, the learned Appellant???s Counsel submitted that the English Version of the Appellant???s confessional statement Exhibit A, which was wrongly admitted in evidence having not been signed by the Appellant, notwithstanding the clause in Exhibit A1 ???already signed by the accused in Hausa Language??? renders the statement (Exhibit A) inadmissible. An unsigned document, he argued, is a worthless and valueless document, which ought not to have been acted upon. We were referred to the cases of GLOBAL SOAP & DETERGENT NIG. LTD. VS NAFDAC (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 599) 1025; ANUM NIG. LTD VS LEVENTIS MOTORS NIG. LTD (1990) 5 NWLR (PT. 151) 458 AT 488; AIKI VS IDOWUÂ (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 304) 432; OMEGA BANK (NIG) PLC vs O.B.C. LTD (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 249) 1964 SC. 6 Exhibit A1Â (the Hausa version) which was properly signed by the Appellant, learned Counsel argued, is irrelevant and cannot be relied upon as the language of the Court is English language citing in support the case of F.R.N. VS USMAN (2012) 8 NWLR (PT. 1301) 141 AT 167 D ??? H; ASINOLA VS FATUDU (2009) 6 NWLR (PT. 1136) 184 198. The heavy reliance placed on Exhibit A in convicting the Appellant, it was further submitted, occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice against the Appellant and rendered the proceedings a nullity as something cannot be placed on nothing. We were referred to the case of MACFOY VS UNITED AFRICA CO. LTD (1961) 3 ALL ER 1169, 1172. ???While urging us to expunge Exhibits A and A1 for being incompetent and when so expunged renders the evidence of PW 1, a child of less than 14 years of age bereft of the required corroboration, the learned trial Judge, learned Counsel argued, was wrong to have held that Exhibits A and A1 aptly corroborate the evidence of PW 1. It was submitted that in a criminal trial the prosecution has the duty to tender all statements made by an accused person either confessional or exculpatory as the tendering