Practitioners must be reminded of this Courts stand on instances such as in the instant case when in Shurumo V, The State (2001) 196 LRCN 199 it opined thus:"When a counsel stands by and allows exhibits to sail smoothly through to become evidence without an eyelid, then it becomes obvious that counsel is comfortable with the evidence without an eyelid, then it becomes obvious that the counsel is comfortable with the evidence and see no reason why he should challenge its admission." And that in Emoga v. The State (1997) 7 SCNJ 578 the Court per Onu JSC had also said: "It will not be in the interest of the society to allow a man who has confessed to his crime to walk out of Court a freeman simply because he has a change of mind. The whole trial will be a mockery.-....... It would be dangerous to apply the principle of extra judicial confession of the accused person as it would open a flood gate of retracing of all statements made by accused persons before the police officer " (Underlining supplied for emphasis). In the instant case, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of learned appellants counsel who has represented the appellant all through his sojourn, and allowed Exhibit A to be admitted in evidence without objection, to now say that the statement be discarded value. All that I have so far tried to say is that the respondent herein has discharged the burden the law places on it to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable as same is devoid of any Probative doubt. The two Courts below are right to have so found and accordingly convicted the appellant as charged. I find