ISSUE 4 Learned counsel to the Appellant had submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in law when he visited the sin/mistake of the counsel on the Appellant. Counsel stated that the former counsel failed to object to the tendering of Exhibit B. Also that the confessional statements were not voluntary but the counsel neglected to object to its tendering. Counsel urged the court to discountenance Exhibit B and the confessional statement Exhibit C, C1 and D and expunge them. The Respondents had nothing to urge the court specifically on this issue. However, the Respondent had argued on these issues in issues 1-3 above. It is unfortunate that the learned counsel to the Appellant is of the opinion that the Appellant's former Counsel failed him. The learned counsel to the Appellant felt that the former counsel should have objected to the admissibility of Exhibit B. I have discussed at length this issue in issues 1, 2 & 3. Exhibit B was tendered and accepted as evidence after complying substantially with S.295 (1) & (3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules, Laws of Akwa Ibom State. See also S. 39 and Section 46 of the Evidence Act 2011. The learned trial Judge cannot be faulted in his acceptance of Exhibit B and its use in reaching his decision to convict the Appellant. The confessional statement Exhibit C, C1 and D were tendered without objection from the Appellant's counsel. As discussed earlier in the other issues, the statements were taken because, the trial Judge was convinced it was made voluntarily. The statements gave a graphic picture of what happened on that fateful day. The confessional statements tallied with the statement of master Blessing who was an eyewitness to the crime. Both statements of Master Blessing and Appellant corroborate each other. It is trite law that even if the Appellant retracted a voluntary confessional statement it does not render such statement inadmissible or worthless and untrue Ikpo Vs. State (supra) Inspite of all these, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the Appellant. The burden of proving a charge against an accused is always on the prosecution. The prosecution has however in this case,