Accordingly, where the facts of the case reject the principle, the Court will have no competence to force the principle of law on the case. Furthermore, the learned Law Lord, at pages 36 37 of the report, concluded, thus: Fair hearing is not a cut-and-dry principle which parties can, in the abstract, always apply to their comfort and convenience. It is a principle which is based and must be based on the facts of the case before the Court. Only the facts of the case can influence and determine the application or applicability of the principle. The principle of fair hearing is helpless or completely dead outside the facts of the case. In the circumstances and facts of the instant case as I demonstrated earlier in this judgment, I am of the considered and firm opinion that the complaint of fair hearing at appellants instance is more of flying a kite and unreal. It is therefore unavailing to him. So, I resolve issue 1 against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. With respect to issue 2, the appellants contention is that his statement in Exhibit P3 was rejected by him in Exhibit P4 because he was tortured and beaten when he made the earlier statement, that is, Exhibit P3. Therefore, according to him, the said Exhibit P3 was not voluntarily made by him and ipso facto, it was not a confessional statement pursuant to Section 28(2) of the Evidence Act. On the other hand, the learned Director of Public prosecutions, for the respondent, submitted that Exhibit P3 was freely and voluntarily made by the appellant who identified it as his statement when it was being tendered into