submitted that the trial Judge, did evaluate all the evidence placed before it and assessed the credibility of the witnesses. See Aremu Vs. Board of Customs and Excise (1965) NWLR page 258. Counsel re-iterated that there was no objection from the Appellant when Exhibit C and C1 were tendered as his confessional statements. The Appellant only sought to retract his statements in his examination in chief which is an after thought. See Odey vs. FRN (2008) 6 SCM 162 at 169. Where Ogbuagu JSC held as follows: "It is now firmly settled that the appropriate time to raise the involuntariness of confessional statement is when it is about to be tendered in evidence and especially, where as in the instant case leading to this appeal the accused person, was represented by a counsel who is assumed to know or ought to know what to do at each stage of the Proceedings" Counsel stated that the only opportunity an accused has to object to the admissibility of his alleged confessional statement on the ground that it was not voluntarily made is during the time the statement is sought to be tendered in evidence and not afterward to ensure the trial court embarked on a proper and appropriate course of action. See Odeh vs. FRN (supra) Olalekan vs. The State (2000) FWLR pt. 91 page 160, Igago Vs. The State (1999) 14 NWLR Pt. 637 page 1. There was no objection to the tendering of Exhibit C, C1 & D as to voluntariness of the statements. There was infact no miscarriage of justice to the Appellant in any way. Counsel submitted further that even if there was just the evidence of PW3, Inspector Monday Nnah, the court would still have been right to convict the Appellant, on the evidence of one single witness, if believed, given the surrounding circumstance of this case. See Nwaeze Vs. The State (1996) 2 NWLR pt. 428 page 1 where the Supreme Court held: "The credibility of evidence does not ordinarily depend on the number of witnesses that testify on a point. Evidence of one credible witness, if acted upon and believed by a Trial Court, is sufficient to justify a conviction". See also Onafowokan Vs. The State (1987) NWLR (pt 61) 538; Amadi vs. The State (1993) NWLR (pt. 314) 644. The learned counsel therefore urged the court to resolve this issue against the Appellant.