"Corroborative evidence is confirmatory evidence or additional evidence to that already given. It is supplementary evidence that tends to strengthen or confirm the evidence already given which it is to corroborate. It is an additional evidence of a different character on the same point. See Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition page 344 and MUSA VS THE STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 1688) B - C. In STATE VS GWANGWAN (2015) LPELR 504/2012 (SC). Of necessity, evidence in corroboration is an independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime in some respects material to the charge in issue but it needs not consist of direct evidence that the accused committed the offence, nor amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness. It is sufficient if it corroborates the evidence in some respects material to the charge. See EZIGBO V. STATE (2012) LPELR - 7855 (SC); R. VS BASKETVILLE (1916-17) ALL ER REPRINT 38 AT 43; IKO VS STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (PT. 732) 221 AT 241." Per WAMBAI, J.C.A. (Pp. 15-16, Paras. F-E) (...read in context) 10. EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION/CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE: Whether the unsworn evidence of a child requires corroboration to warrant a conviction "I quite agree with the learned Counsel that the unsworn evidence of PW1, a child below the age of 14 years, requires corroboration both as a matter of law as stipulated in Section 209 (1) and (3) of the Evidence Act and by established practice as a matter of prudence. See OBRI VS THE STATE (1997) LPELR 2194 (SC); DAGAYYA VS THE STATE (2006) LPELR - 912 (SC)." Per WAMBAI, J.C.A. (P. 15, Paras. D-E) (...read in context) 11. EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION/CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE: Whether corroboration is required for a confessional statement to sustain a conviction "In OSENI VS THE STATE (Supra) the Supreme Court in considering the question whether the trial Court can convict on an uncorroborated confessional statement, held that even without corroboration, a confessional statement is sufficient to support a conviction so long as the Court is satisfied of its truth. This is premised on the established principle that a confessional statement which is free, direct, positive and voluntary is enough to ground or sustain a conviction. See MOHAMMED VS THE STATE (2007) 11 NWLR (PT. 1045 303; OKOH VS THE STATE (2014) 2 - 3 SC 184." Per WAMBAI, J.C.A. (P. 24, Paras. B-D) (...read in context)