"It is trite law that mere retraction of a voluntary confessional statement by an accused person does not render such statement inadmissible or worthless and untrue in considering his guilt. Silas Ikpo Vs. The State (1996) 1 NILR 59 SC, Ihebeka vs. State (2000) 4 SC (pt.1) 203. Idowu Vs. State (2000) 7 SC (Pt.II) 50. The trial Judge was therefore right in holding that the retraction of the Appellant's confessional statement did not render them inadmissible or worthless or untrue in considering the guilt of the Appellant. Silas Ikpo vs. State (1996) 1 NILR pate 59, Ihuebeka vs. State (2000) 4 SC pt 1 page 203, Idowu vs. State (2000) 7 SC pt II Page 50." Per NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (P. 24, paras. A-B) (...read in context) 13. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Whether where a confessional statement is retracted such statement will be inadissible "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, adduced enough evidence to show that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder charged Nasiru Vs. State (1999) 2 NWLR Pt.589 page 87, Imhanria vs. Nigerian Army (2007) 14 NWLR pt.1053 page 78." Per NDUKWEANYANWU, J.C.A. (Pp. 39-40, paras. F-B) (...read in context) 14. INTERPRETATION OF STATUE - SECTION 209 (1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT: Statutory provision of Section 209 (1) Evidence Act which provides for testimony of an infant "Section 209 (1) Evidence Act provides as follows: (1) In any proceeding in which a child who has not attained the age of 14 years is tendered as a witness, such child shall not be sworn and shall give evidence otherwise than on oath or affirmation, if in the opinion of the court, he is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of his evidence and understands the duty of speaking the truth. This subsection is mandatory and it provides that a child under the age of 14 years shall not be sworn. This child as at the time of giving evidence on the 29th of July, 2004 was 13 years. The learned trial Judge A. E. Archibong went through the whole hug to ascertain whether he, indeed, understood what it meant to tell the truth. He ascertained that he sufficiently understood what it meant to testify and the seriousness of what it meant to testify in court. The infant passed this test and made to take the