This issue as articulated by the Appellant, argued at length the inadmissibility of the testimony of the infant, Blessing Peter Asuguo and the inadmissibility of the confessional statements of the Appellant tendered as C, C (1) and D. There are 3 Prosecution Witnessed in this case, PW1 is Dr. Mmefin Ekpo, PW2 is the ACR, who tendered Exhibit B, the record of proceedings in the first High Court before its transfer and PW 3 is the Investigating Police Officer Inspector Monday Nnah who testified and tendered some relevant documents. The infant, the Appellant's counsel referred to testified as PW1 in the first court. This infant was the only eye witness who testified before the first court. His testimony was tendered in the 2nd High Court and marked as Exhibit B. Section 209 (1) Evidence Act provides as follows: (1) In any proceeding in which a child who has not attained the age of 14 years is tendered as a witness, such child shall not be sworn and shall give evidence otherwise than on oath or affirmation, if in the opinion of the court, he is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of his evidence and understands the duty of speaking the truth. This subsection is mandatory and it provides that a child under the age of 14 years shall not be sworn. This child as at the time of giving evidence on the 29th of July, 2004 was 13 years. The learned trial Judge A. E. Archibong went through the whole hug to ascertain whether he, indeed, understood what it meant to tell the truth. He ascertained that he sufficiently understood what it meant to testify and the seriousness of what it meant to testify in court. The infant passed this test and made to take the oath before testifying. SECTION 209 3. A person shall not be liable to be convicted for an offence unless the testimony admitted by virtue of subsection (1) of this section and given on behalf of the prosecution is corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such testimony implicating the defendant. The subsection provides that the testimony of an infant must be corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such testimony implicating the accused/defence. However, in Solola vs. State (2005) 11 NWLR pt 937 page 460, the Supreme Court held that the evidence of a child given on oath need not be corroborated.