My understanding of this section of the Evidence Act is that a court cannot act on the uncorroborated evidence from any source to sustain a conviction in a sexual offence case. While I agree that conviction of an accused can only be valid when there is such corroborative evidence (IKO v. THE STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732), I must state straightaway that section 180(2) (a) does not impose any requirement that the prosecutrix must testify. However, where the evidence from the prosecutrix is the sole evidence in support of the charge of rape, then such evidence must be corroborated. The law is that whatever evidences the prosecution may wish to adduce to prove its case; such evidence must be credible such that it is sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of the victim's evidence is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case in sexual offences as an accused can be convicted of the crime on the basis of the testimony of witnesses other than the victim. This must be so because a toddler of two years may not be expected to be able to testify in court. Her inability to testify, should not absolved the accused person from criminal liability when there is credible evidence to support the commission of the crime. The prosecution may therefore properly rely on credible eye witness accounts and compelling medical evidence to secure a conviction on sexual offence cases. I therefore agree with the learned State Counsel that the inability of the child victim to testify in this cause did not necessarily fatal. 5