the intelligence to understand the questions put to them and give rational answers to them. - Sambo V. State (1993) 6 NWLR pt 300 p 399. - Onyegbu V. State (1995) 4 NWLR pt 391 p 510. - Shazali V. State (1988) 3 NSCC 234. In the case of Idi V. State (2017) LPELR 42587, the Supreme Court per Kekere – Ekun JSC, held that Section 209 of the Evidence Act 2011 makes provision for the unsworn evidence of a child in Criminal proceedings. According to the Supreme Court, the first duty of the trial court is to first determine whether the child is sufficiently intelligent to understand the questions he may be asked in the course of his testimony and to be able to answer them rationally, and this is tested by the trial court putting the preliminary questions which may have nothing to do with the matter before the court. Secondly, if as a result of the preliminary questions, the child was able to understand the questions and gave intelligent answers, then the child becomes a competent witness and can give evidence that is admissible, and if the child is able to understand the nature and implication of an oath, then he will be competent to give evidence on oath. - Obi V. State (2016) LPELR 40543. - Kiwo V. State (2020) 7 NWLR pt 1722 p 99 at 164-193. - Dagayya V. State (2006) NWLR pt 980 p 637. - Okon V. State (1988) 19 NSCC 156; (1988) 1 NWLR pt 69 p 172. - Onyegbu V. State (1995) 4 NWLR pt 391 p 510. Before the evidence of PW2 is taken, this court on the 1/12/2021 conducted a preliminary investigation in compliance with the decisions of our superior courts and the provisions of Section 209 (1) of the Page 14 of 19