the medical report and even the other prosecution witnesses' testimonies which had a flow showing the credibility and veracity in those testimonies. Therefore, in terms of corroboration, there were many to solidify the evidence of prosecutrix. (italics supplied) The Court cited, with approval, the decision in Ogunbayov. The State (2007) 8 NWLR (pt. 1035) 157. In that case (Ogunbayo v State), Tobi JSC, painstakingly, surveyed the chequered trajectory of rape jurisprudence. His Lordship espoused the beneficial view in Iko v The State [2001] 14 NWLR (pt. 732) 221 that it was not the law that an accused person in a charge of rape could not be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecuting. In His Lordship's esteemed view, the proper direction was that it was unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecuting. He, first, observed that: There are two dimensions to the issue of corroboration as decided by the Courts. First, the Courts hold that rape is not an offence inwhich corroboration is required by law and procedure. But the Court should warn itself ofthe danger of convicting an accused on rape in uncorroborated evidence. Second, an accused person cannot be convicted unless the evidence of the prosecuting is corroborated. I take the case law in that order. In The State v. Ogwudiegwu (1968) NMLR 117, it was held that the offence of rape, in order to secure a conviction, corroboration of the evidence of the complainant implicating the accused is not essential, but a Judge must warn himself of the risk of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the complaint. In Okpanefe v The State (1969) 1 All NLR 420, it was held that by Section 178(5) of the Evidence Act, the Court cannot convict an accused on a charge of rape