Furthermore, in the case of Okanlawon V. State (2015) 17 NWLR pt 1489 at 481 the Supreme Court held as follows:“The law is settled that where an extrajudicial confession has been proved and established to have been made voluntarily, and it is direct, positive and an unequivocal admission of guilt, such confession will suffice to ground a finding of guilt regardless of the fact that the maker resiles from it altogether at the trial.” - Musa V. State (2019) 10 WRN 1. - Umar V. FRN (2019) 13 WRN 1 Although PW2 is a child who is below the age of 14 years, by the provisions of Section 209 (1) and (3) of the Evidence Act 2011, a child under the age of 14 years is not precluded from giving evidence before a trial court, if in the opinion of the court, the child is possessed of sufficient intelligence as well as understands the duty of speaking the truth to justify the reception of his evidence especially where his evidence is being corroborated by some other material evidence in support of the child’s testimony implicating the Defendant. Furthermore, by the provisions of Section 175 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, all persons are competent to testify in any proceedings unless the court considers that the witness is prevented from understanding the questions put to him or unable to give rational answers to those questions by reason of either tender years, extreme old age, or disease of body of mind or other cause of the same kind. In the case of Solola V. State (2005) ALL FWLR pt 269 p 1751, the Supreme Court has held that competence to testify, is not a matter of age, but of intellectual capacity of the witness, hence all persons irrespective of their age, are competent witnesses provided they have Page 13 of 19