By virtue of section 180 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act, the law enjoins that I must seek for corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix on this count. Section 180 (2) of the Evidence Act provides; “…a court shall not in the following cases, act on uncorroborated evidence … (a) cases of rape and other sexual offences against the complainants;” (emphases mine). The use of the mandatory ‘shall not’ in section 180 (2) (a) cited above, robs this court of any discretion. The law is settled that when statutory corroboration is required as in the instant case, a conviction of an accused can only be valid when there is such corroborative evidence (see the Nigerian Supreme Court case of IKO v. THE STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732). The learned State Counsel has urged me to hold section 180 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act as unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminates against women qua women. I agree that section 4 of the 1997 Constitution envisages the supremacy of the Constitution, and that any law which is inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution is to the extent of that inconsistency void. I agree that section 33 of the Constitution protects the right not to be discriminated against, and that section 121 of the Criminal Code is principally an offence against a woman or girl child. It would seem therefore that to require corroboration in rape cases would amount to a 9