duty of speaking the truth and give rational answers to the questions put to him to justify the receptions of his evidence especially where his evidence is being corroborated by some other material evidence in support of his 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 Learned counsel has argued that PW4 and PW5 are children whose evidence required corroboration. I quite agree with him this is the law. By virtue of section 209 (1) and (3) of the Evidence Act 2011, unsworn testimony of a child below the age of 14 years such as PW4 and PW5 requires corroboration by some other material evidence implicating the defendant to ground his conviction. This is the requirement both as a matter of law and by prudence and established practice see OBRI V STATE (1997) LPELR. Evidence in corroboration must be on independent testimony which affects the defendant by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime in some respects material to the charge in issue but it needs not consist of direct evidence that the defendant committed the offence, nor amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness. It is sufficient if it corroborates the evidence in some respect material to the charge see EZIGBO V. STATE (2012) LPELR 7855 (SC) R V. BASKETVILLE (1916 - 17) ALL ER REPRINT 38 AT 43: IKO V. STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (pt 732) 221 AT 241. Page 13 of 23