that: “Other discrepancies i.e., non-sending the accused to prison does not go to the issue of voluntariness. That is too remote.” Hence, the selfincriminating statement was entered as evidence at the trial before the High Court. 74. Following the admission into evidence of the self-incriminating statement, the High Court resumed the main trial. The Court notes that the High Court dismissed the oral evidence of two prosecution witnesses (PW2 and PW3) due to the inconsistencies in their testimonies. Therefore, of the three (3) prosecution witnesses’ testimony, the High Court only relied on that of (PW1), the justice of peace, who corroborated the voluntariness of the Applicant’s extra-judicial statement. 75. In addition, the High Court relied on documentary evidence, being the postmortem report of the two (2) victims of the murder incident and the Applicant’s medical examination report of 22 March 1995, showing he was not bruised. This evidence was adduced without objections either by the prosecution or the Applicant. 76. The Court therefore finds that there is nothing on record to sustain the Applicant’s claim that the High Court’s admission into evidence of his selfincriminating statement was inconsistent with his right to have his cause heard. ii. On the alleged error of law and fact by the Court of Appeal 77. On the Applicant’s second claim, the Court observes that the Applicant proffered one ground of appeal, that is, the failure of the High Court to observe that his conviction was based on a repudiated confession, without ascertaining whether or not the same was made voluntarily. 78. The Court notes that, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the statement admitted into evidence by the High Court was a lawfully obtained confession. This is because it revealed material aspects of the murders such as the weapons used in the killings, which were confirmed by the 21