different political party group that why they wanted to undue me. I know that I have committed an offence, please forgive me that is all my statement. The ipse-dixit of the appellant in Exhibit P3, undoubtedly, was a confessional statement of his admission in respect of the charge against him. Exhibit P3 has all the trappings of the requirement in Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the law is well settled to the effect that once an accused person makes a statement which states categorically that he committed the offence with which he was charged, he can be convicted upon that confessional statement. Kasa v. The State (2008) 2 SCNJ 375 at 423; Abdullahi & Ors v. The State (2013) 5 SCNJ (pt. II) 453 at 473 474. The Supreme Court was very emphatic in Basil Akpan v. The State (2008) 4 5 SC, (pt. II) 1, to the effect that a confession in a criminal trial is the strongest evidence of guilt on the part of an accused person. It is stronger than the evidence of an eye witness because the evidence, borrowing from the daily axiom, comes from the mouth of the horse, who is the accused person. What better evidence than that? He knows or knew what he did and he says or said it in Court. Is there any need for any further proof? I think not. - per Niki Tobi, JSC. In the instant case, the appellant, at the trial apart from not objecting to the admission into evidence of Exhibit P3, did not allege that he was beaten or tortured in making the confessional statement. If that were the situation, the learned trial judge would have been duty bound, to conduct a trialwithin-trial, in order to determine the voluntariness or involuntariness of the said confessional statement. Osuagwu v. The State (2013) 1 SCNJ 33 at 58 59. However, since that