which contradicts his previous statements in writing, his evidence should be treated as un reliable referred the court to the cases of - Michael Akogwu & Anor V. State {2000} 12 NWLR (pt 681) 245. - Edohu V. State {2010} 14 NWLR (PT 1214) 651 SC @ 668. - Kayoed Babarinde & ors V. State {2012} LPELR 836 7 (CA) It was the submission of the defendant counsel that in paragraph 3:41 – 3:48 of their adopted written address that section 209 (8) of the Evidence Act 2011 makes corroboration a matter of law and must be provided to ground conviction and that since the 2 victims are minors there is need to have that evidence corroborated. Learned counsel submitted in paragraph 4:01 - 4:14 of their adopted written address that the defendant concede that the exhibits were admitted in evidence but the Exhibits are not deserving assumption of any probative value i.e admission and weight to be attached to a document are two different things, learned defence counsel further submitted that the makers of exhibit A and B did not come to court to be cross examined as to his examination/observation and finding shown in exhibits, the appearance of the maker is necessary, because the maker of the exhibits is the only person that can be cross examined on their content and rational answers from the examination reflected in the exhibits which PW3 the witness through whom the exhibits were tendered cannot. Learned counsel submitted that the fact that the defendant was overruled on his objection to tendering and admissibility of exhibit A and B does not mean that the Exhibits are to be ascribed any probative value without its maker been called to be Page 6 of 23