Although PW3 is a child, by the provisions of section 209 (1) and (3) of the Evidence Act, 2019 she is not precluded from giving evidence before a trial court if in the opinion of the court the child possessed of sufficient intelligence as well as understanding the duty of speaking the truth and give rational answers to the questions put to her to justify the receptions of her evidence is being corroborated by some other material evidence in support of her testimony implicating the defendant. - Section 175 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 - Solala V. State (2005) ALL FWLR pg 300 p 399 - Onyegbu V. State (1995) 4 NWLR pt 391 p 510 - Shazali V. State (1988) 3 NSCC 234 - Idi V. State (2017) LPELR 42587 In order to corroborate the above testimony of PW4 the prosecution equally fielded other witnesses. PW3, Umar Bojo (father of PW4) testified that he knows the defendant and that they live in the same house with his daughter in fact defendant is his nephew. According to PW3, his daughter reported to him about what happened, according to the witness he immediately went to civil defence and reported the case, during cross examination PW3 admitted that he did not see when his daughter was being raped. The evidence of PW3 is clear that he was testifying as to what his daughter told him, therefore he was testifying as to not what he saw, heard observed, and therefore his evidence is hearsay evidence as submitted by the learned defence counsel. Page 15 of 22