here the 'warning business' that the appellate Courts have been given to the trial Judge.(Italics supplied for emphasis) His Lordship turned to the justification of the English practice on this matter [that was before the amendment of the law in England]. He explained that: In England where the principle emerged and is applicable, the trial by jury is in force. In view of the fact that the jury convicts, the procedure is that the Judge should warn the Jury of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant. Is that really necessary in Nigeria where the Jury System is no more What is the practical effect of the law expecting the trial Judge to warn himself of the danger of convicting without corroboration If he does not warn himself in reality and writes down in his judgment that he did, how useful is that In the entire truth searching process Is our adjectival law not pretentious here And can law afford to be pretentious He advanced reasons why the corroboration requirement was unnecessary. Listen to His Lordship's incisive reasoning on this matter:I am not comfortable with the case law that corroboration is necessary to secure conviction of the offence of rape. This is because I see no statute foisting on the prosecution evidence of corroboration before convicting an accused. Section 350 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap. 77 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 which is similar to the States Criminal Codes, does not provide that evidence of corroboration is necessary for conviction. And the Criminal Code specifically provides for offence where corroboration is necessary. Rape is not one of such. The above apart,