I also agree with the submission of the learned State Counsel that once a cautionary statement is admitted in evidence it immediately forms an integral part of the prosecution‟s case and the court is bound to rely on its probative value (AMOSHIMA v. STATE (2009) 4 NCC 280). In the instant case the prosecution has adduced credible evidence of the confessions of the accused to the crime. Although a court can convict on the confessions of an accused person alone, the fact that the accused took the earliest opportunity in court to deny having made the statements makes the issue of corroboration of the said evidence crucial (R v. SAPELE & ANOR (1952) 2 FSC 74). The law is that where a confession is free and voluntary and in itself fully consistent and probable, and the inculpating statements are corroborated by several facts, the entire evidence is admissible (KANU v. THE KING (1952) 14 WACA 30). A free and voluntary confession of guilt by a person, when duly made and satisfactorily proved, is sufficient to warrant a conviction without any corroborative evidence as long as the court is satisfied of the truth of the confession (EFFIONG v. THE STATE (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt. 562) 362). The confessional statements of the accused person in this matter were only admitted in evidence after a rigorous and sustained process of a voire dire. The Court was therefore satisfied with the voluntariness of the said statements. While I agree that the retraction of the confessions by the accused does not ipso facto render the confession inadmissible (R. v. JOHN AGAGARIGA ITULE (1961) 1 ANLR 402), it is desirable to have 6