It was in view of the answers given by PW2 in response to the respective questions put to him during the preliminary investigation that this court became satisfied that PW2 is possessed of sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that may be put to him in the course of his oral testimony as well as give rational answers to them having appeared to understand the duty of speaking the truth. As required by Subsection (3) of Section 209 of the Evidence Act, 2011, the evidence of PW2 as earlier stated in this Judgment, has been substantially corroborated by the confessional statements of the Defendants admitted in evidence in this case and marked as Exhibits ‘A’, ‘A1’, ‘B’ and ‘B1’ respectively. This is because corroboration entails the act of supporting or strengthening statement of a witness by another evidence which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. - Yahaya V. State (2019) 38 WRN 104 at 129. - State V. Gwangwan (2015) 13 WRN pt 1477 p 600 at 626. - Edhigere V. State (1998) 8 NWLR pt 464 p 1. Defining what is corroborative evidence, the Supreme Court in the case of Ikumonihan V. State (2019) 45 WRN 98 at 120 lines 5-15 held as follows:“Corroborative evidence is evidence which shows or tends to show that the story…that the accused committed the crime is true…” - Okabichi V. State (1975) 3 SC 96 In view of all the foregoing, it is the humble view of this court that the evidence of PW2 has been adequately corroborated for the purpose of the requirement of Section 209 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011. Page 16 of 19