render it inadmissible. The plea of non est factum was not made out. The Court was entitled to rely on the statement along with the other credible evidence before it. See: Ubierho Vs The State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt.919) 644; Yesufu vs The State (1976) 6 SC 167; Alarape vs The State (2001) 5 NWLR (pt.705) 79." Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (Pp. 33-34, Paras. E-B) (...read in context) 12. EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE: Whether a counsel who stands by and allows exhibits tendered to become evidence without any objection cannot be heard to later complain about same "Practitioners must be reminded of this Court's 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." Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Pp. 26-27, Paras. F-E) (...read in context)