credibility of the certificate. I am therefore bound to accept it as being credible in confirming that PW 1 was indeed carnally known. Counsel also submitted that the evidence of PW 5 that the accused confessed in his presence and in the presence of his boss is and cannot be believed. In the absence to the contrary, and further to the fact that the accused did not enter his defence or call any witness more particularly the said boss to refute the said allegation, I have no other alternative but to accept that evidence as being true. Such allegation as serious as it was, ought not to have been taken lightly. I am surprised that Counsel did not take it seriously. In as much as the accused does not have to prove his innocence, it would have been prudent and in his interest to call his boss to testify on his behalf. He did not do so probably because he did it all and did not want to be drawn into it and I so hold. Counsel submitted and I quote, “It is surprising that all the people in front of whom PW 5 said the accused confessed are his friends and also that neither PW3, PW5 nor PW6 the mother, step father nor the aunty contacted or reported the matter to the parents of the accused who they say are their neighbours.” This is a matter that goes to no issue. However, the accused on being asked said that he preferred his boss to be informed and besides anybody can be informed. She submits that what happened is that the prosecution, faced with the difficulty of proving their case resorted to calling a friend of PW 5 and PW 7 and urged the court to disregard them. Counsel’s argument bears no fruit and I therefore consider it as a mere conjecture and I so hold. In the premises therefore I hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. See the case of Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All E.R. 372 at 374 and Bakare v The State (1987) LRC PP179. 23