5. EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION: What the prosecution needs to do in order to secure a conviction for the offence of rape "In the State vs. Ogwudiegwe (1965) NMLR 117, it was held that in order for the prosecution to secure a conviction for the offence of rape, corroboration of the evidence of the complainant implicating the accused is not essential but a judge must warn himself of the risk of convicting on an uncorroborated evidence of the complainant. But in Okpanefe vs. The State (1968) 1 All NLR 420, it was held that by virtue of Section 178(5) of the Evidence Act, the Court cannot convict on a charge without corroboration. Similar decision was reached in Sambo vs. The State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.300) 399." Per ADAMU,J.C.A. (P.12,paras.B-D) (...read in context) 6. EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION: Whether corroboration of evidence in rape cases is a requirement of law or as a matter of practice "Corroboration of the evidence of a witness is not required except where the law demands it. Evidence of corroboration of the evidence of the victim in rape cases is not a requirement as a matter of law but only in practice. In other words in cases of sexual character it is eminently desirable that the evidence of the prosecutrix or complainant should be strengthened by other evidence implicating the accused person in some material particulars. It is however not the law that the accused person in a charge of rape cannot be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix - See the cases of Iko v. State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt.732) 221; Ibeakanma vs. Queen (1963) SCNLR 191; Reekie vs. Queen (1954) 14 WACA 501; Sunmonu vs. IGP (1957) WRNLR 23 and Ogunbayo v. State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt.1035) 157 at 156 and 157." Per ADAMU,J.C.A. (Pp.11-12,paras.E-A) (...read in context) 7. LEGAL PRACTITIONER - DUTY OF COUNSEL: Whether the counsel is duty bound to object to any wrong procedure adopted at the trial or tendering of any document,etc "The law is, where accused person is defended by a Counsel at a trial, it is the duty of such Counsel to object to any wrong procedure adopted at the trial, or to the tendering of any document, including a purported confessional statement of the accused person. Where he fails to play his role and takes part in the trial to conclusion, he cannot, thereafter, raise question on the alleged wrong procedure or