address same, I will however adopt a different sequence in addressing these issues. On the issue of whether the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant. It is settled that for the prosecution to ground a conviction on a charge of defilement, the prosecution would have to prove the following ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 1. 2. 3. 4. That That That That there was carnal knowledge. the act was unlawful. the girl was under sixteen years new 18 years as amended. the act was that of the accused person. There is no iota of doubt in the evidence before this court that the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant. Apart from the complainant alleging so, the accused himself admitted to having carnal knowledge of the complainant in his evidence under oath. It is trite that what is admitted needs no further proof. It remains admitted as establishing the facts alleged therein. See: Antoine Banna v. Ocean View Resort Ltd. (2002-2008) 1 GLR18, Mozie v. Mba Malu (2006) 25 NSCQR 425 Friday Kamalu & Ors v. Umuana & Ors (1997) 5 SCNJ 191. However, as rightly pointed out by counsel for the defence, the offence for which the accused stands charge under Section 127 of the Criminal Code is a sexual offence which falls within the eases stated under Section 180 (2)(a) of the Evidence Act 1994 in which evidence needed corroboration. However there is no necessity to find out whether the evidence before the court on the issue of carnal knowledge has been corroborated in the face of a blatant admission by the accused. Notwithstanding, the court will still venture in to same it being a criminal matter. Section 179 of the Evidence Act 1994 states. “Corroboration consists of independent evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn which confirms and supports in some material particular the evidence to be corroborated and connects the relevant person with the offence, claim or defence”. When a piece of evidence requires corroboration what to look for is any independent testimony in support of the evidence as pointed out by the west African court of Appeal in R v. Sekun and others (1941) 7 WACA 10. “In most cases where the question of corroboration arises the question is, is there independent testimony which affects the accused by tending to connect him with the crime?......”