centre from which medical report originated is not Government own centre, by the provision of section 68(1) of the Evidence Act 2011; Section 68(1) Evidence Act 2011 as amended “When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of science, the opinion upon that point of a person especially skilled in such science, is admissible.” Furthermore by section 76 of the Evidence Act as amended “Whenever the opinion of any person is admissible, the grounds on which the opinion is based is also admissible.” Furthermore from the contents of the medical reports which admitted as Exhibit A and B, it is crystal clear that Exhibits A and B were sign by one Dr. Auwal Ahmad Musa and the grounds upon which he from his opinion are apparent on the certificate also the learned defence counsel not contesting the fact that the content of Exhibit A and B are not correct also PW4 and PW5 were not rape however, the learned counsel is not happy that the medical report relied upon by the prosecution come from a private medical doctor serving in Nana Khadija medical centre a non-Governmental hospital, instead of a Governmental hospital, in my view as long as the medical report is from a qualified medical doctor, whether it is from a private hospital or government hospital or non-governmental organization is a none issue, it is my humble view that the medical reports Exhibits A and B corroborates the evidence of PW4 and PW5, this is incorporation with section 68(1) and section 76 of the Evidence Act 2011, I also refer you to the cases of: - Lucky V. State (2016) LPELR 44862 (SC) - Ivwighere V. State (2018) LPELR 44862 (SC) Page 20 of 23