as to its truth, the accused person can be convicted on it. Akpan v. The State (2001) 15 N.W.L.R. (pt. 737) 745. The above notwithstanding, the Supreme Court had held in a plethora of authorities to the effect that it is expedient and desirable that where an accused person has denied making the confessional statement, the trial Court should look for some evidence, however slight, outside the confession to confirm that it was a true confession. Emmanuel Nwaebonyi v. The State (1994) 5 N.W.L.R. (pt. 343) 138; Effiong v. The State (1998) 8 N.W.L.R. (pt. 562) 362; Golden Dibie & 2 Ors. v. The State (2007) 3 SCNJ 160 at 171 172; Osetola v. The State (2012) ALL FWLR (pt. 649) 1020; Osuagwu v. The State (2013) 1 S.C.N.J 33 at 57. The apex Court, in order to put the Courts on firma terra, before grounding a conviction on a retracted confessional statement, evolved a six parameter test in gauging the veracity and truthfulness of such confessional statements. His Lordship, Adekeye, J.S.C. in Haruna v. Attor. Gen. Federation (2012) LPELR 7821 (SC) at pages 28 29, succinctly stated that: A Court can convict on the retracted confessional statement of an accused person but before this is properly done, the trial judge should evaluate the confession and the testimony of the accused person and all the evidence available. This entails the trial judge examining the new version of events presented by the accused person which is different from his retracted confession and the judge asking himself the following questions Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true? a. Is it corroborated? b. Are the relevant statements made in it of facts true as far as they can be tested? c. Did the accused person have the opportunity of committing the offence charged? d. Is the confession possible? e. Is the confession consistent