Principal State Counsel and G. A. Bamikole, Esq., Legal Officer (NYSC) all of the Ministry of Justice, Abakaliki. In the appellants brief of argument, three issues were nominated therein for the determination of the appeal. They are, to wit: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case of rape against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the trial Court was right when it admitted and convicted the appellant based on the alleged confessional statement (Exhibit P3) when the said Exhibit P3 did not comply with Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended? 3. Whether the non representation of appellant by counsel at crucial stage of his trial, did not violate the constitutional right of the appellant? On the part of the respondent, two issues were suggested for the determination of the appeal, thus: 1. Whether the prosecution has beyond reasonable doubt, proved its case of rape against the Appellant. 2. Whether the non-representation of the Appellant by a counsel at the crucial stage of his trial constituted a violation of the Appellants fundamental right to fair hearing. Having perused the record of appeal, the judgment of the Court below vis-a-vis the grounds of appeal against that judgment and the issues nominated by the respective counsel to the parties. I am satisfied that the two issues nominated by the respondent which covers issues 1 and 3 of the appellants, are sufficient to