"It is trite that the time to raise objection to the voluntariness of a confessional statement to the police is when it is sought to be tendered in evidence in which case a trial-within-trial would be conducted at that stage to determine the voluntariness of the statement. A challenge to such confessional statement on ground of voluntariness raised at defence stage, as in this case, was belatedly raised and did not affect the admissibility in evidence of the statements, Exhibits A3 and A5 vide F.R.N. v. Iweka (2013) 3 NWLR (pt.1341) 285 at 332

Thus "At the risk of repetition but for emphasis, the law is trite that the voluntariness of a confessional statement can only be contested when it is about to be tendered in evidence. That is the appropriate time to raise the involuntariness or otherwise of a confessional statement. Where as in this case the respondent, was represented by counsel, it is assumed he ought to know what to do at each stage of proceedings. The Respondent failed to raise such objection.

She cannot on appeal complain of absence of trial within trial. See Nwachukwu v. The State (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 902) 262 at 273; Oche v. The State (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1027) 214 at 219; Okoro v. The State (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 282) 425. Since the essence of a trial-within-trial is to inter alia, decide whether or not to uphold an objection to the admissibility of a confessional statement, a retraction of an already admitted confessional statement cannot necessitate a trial-within-trial. To do so will be to take steps towards asking the Court to re-decide, reconsider and re-determine the admissibility of a document already admitted and marked as Exhibit, thereby creating a vicious circle.

 The law is trite that once a Court has taken their decision on an issue, it stands unless that decision is found to be perverse. It is a commendable path treaded by the trial Court. It averted the ominous consequence of holding in one breath that exhibit 2A having been admitted is not now admissible simply because it was belatedly retracted for no good cause. This is in tandem with the settled principle of law that a Court cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time". See also Afolalu v. State (supra)."

Per IKYEGH, J.C.A. IN ADUNBI v. STATE CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45005(CA)