5 sexual offence cases. Where statutory corroboration is required,a conviction of an accused can only be valid when there is such corroborative evidence(IKO v. THE STATE).Corroboration in this case would require any evidence that tends to confirm the evidence of the prosecutrix on any material issue (R v. SEKUN & Ors (1941) 7 W ACA, 10),and that evidence must be extraneous to the evidence of the prosecutrix (R v. WHITE HEAD(1929) I.K.B 99, 102). In OGUNBAYO v. THE STATE, the Court held inter alia that in cases of this nature corroboration could be deduced from circumstantial evidence which, could include amongst others, (a) the denials of the accused, (b) the last opportunity the accused had to commit the offence, (c) medical evidence of the examination of the prosecutrix confirming the allegation of recent forcible coitus and (d) the existence of recent semen in the vagina of the prosecutrix directly traced or traceable to the accused. Where an accused person has denied the allegation of rape, the evidence of corroboration that the Court must look for, is for instance (a) medical evidence showing injury to the private part or to other parts of her body which may have been occasioned in a struggle, and (b) semen stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused person on the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed (POSU v. THE STATE). As far as this offence is concerned it is my view that there are three issues to be corroborated here; the act of sexual intercourse, the element of consent or the lack of it, and the identity of the perpetrator.