On his second issue, counsel submitted that the offence the accused is charged with is a sexual offence under Section 180 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act 1994 and it needed to be corroborated. That the definition of corroboration is as stated under Section 169 of the Evidence Act to be independent evidence……..” counsel submitted that the evidence of the complainant needed to be corroborated by independent material. That the evidence of the complainant is the sole piece of evidence. That her witness statement is unsworn and is not independent. Also, that the evidence of the accused had not been corroborated and his cautionary statement which was unsworn could not corroborate the sworn testimony. On his third issue on the proof of age, it is the submission of counsel that the correctness of the complainant’s birth certificate was questioned. That the complainant said to have been born in 1992 was not registered until 2003 and that raises a huge doubt which must be resolved in favour of the accused person. It is the further submission of counsel, that the proper person to have tendered the birth certificate and be cross-examined on it was Registrar of Births and Deaths at the Department of Health and which officer was not brought to court. That the complainant’s father did not tender her clinic card which he said he had. Counsel submitted that the onus is on the prosecution to establish that she was less than 18 years of age and which onus has not been discharged. That the evidence of PW4 regarding the correctness of the birth certificate should be disregarded. Counsel finally submitted that no medical evidence was tendered to support the allegation that the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant. The prosecution in its address stated its case relying on Section 127 of the Criminal Code and submitted that it is inherent that the ingredients of the offence for which the prosecution must prove fall under three categories: 1. That the state has to prove that the complainant was less than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offence. 2. Whether the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant. 3. And did the accused have any reasonable cause to belief that the complainant was 18 years and above. Mr. Sanneh state counsel submitted that the prosecutions had called four witnesses and tendered five Exhibits. On the first ingredient, was the complainant under 18 years, the prosecution submitted that the complainant was in grade 9 at the time of the offence in July 2009. That given the time at which children go to school in this country, the complainant would still have been under 18 years in grade 9. Counsel submitted that to further buttress the age of