There is no law that says the plaintiff or the prosecution must bring a million witnesses or evidence to court before he can succeed in his case. A court can convict on a single witness. A case is not decided by the numbers of witnesses, single credible convincing evidence is enough to convict in a case but there are some exceptions”. The exceptions refer to by this learned mean the circumstances where corroboration will be required before any judge can decide his case. Although a judge can convict upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice but he must warn himself before given such conviction in fact he is advised to seek corroborating evidence before convicting an accused because failure to do so can lead to the setting aside of his judgment on appeal.
Generally, corroboration cuts a niche for itself, it is used both in criminal and civil cases. It will also state the position of judges on the issue of corroboration and various decisions of court on different issues a
Corroboration is evidence tending to confirm
some fact of which other evidence is given. As a matter of common sense, the
more corroboration is present the easier it is to prove a fact and from this
point of view a judge will always look for corroborating evidence.
Corroboration according to
Osborn’s Concise Dictionary
means independent evidence which
implicate a person accused of a crime by connecting him with it, or an evidence
which confirms in some fact particularly not only that the crime has been
committed but also that the accused actually committed the crime. According to
corroboration mean evidence given to further
support or strength existing evidence.
Corroboration according to the Evidence Ac
refers to an independent statement made by other witness which proves the truth
of the first evidence. It is also refer to as the requirement in some
jurisdiction such as Scotland that any evidence adduced be backed up by at
least one other source.
edition by leslie Rutherford
edition vol.11 1963 by Horny Oxford University Sheila bone
act 1945 cap 112 L.F.N 1990
Corroboration is a
mandatory requirement under certain circumstances, in the sense that no matter
how convincing the evidence requiring corroboration is, the party relying on
that evidence will fail unless he adduces corroboration.
Corroboration is therefore
called for where there is need order to ascertain that such evidence can be
relied upon to convict the accused person. Corroboration is a ground for the
admissibility of certain evidence for the purpose of conviction and if the
corroborating evidence is not the same with the existing evidence an accused
can not be convicted upon such existing evidence. This essay shall examine the
various incidence where corroboration must or might be required to be taken
before there can be a conviction, corroboration under common law , Nigerian
law. It shall also examine the position of judges and statutory authorities and
will also analyses various issues arising from corroboration. This project is
basically directed toward analyzing corroboration as known under the Nigerian
law of evidence. There shall also be an insight into various circumstances as
when, where and why corroboration is required.
TO THE STUDY
The reason for venturing
into this topic is based on personal interest in the concept “Corroboration”
and the desire to shed more light on it by analyzing it critically. This work
is therefore based on the analysis of corroboration under the Nigerian law of
evidence. It analysis shall include discussion on the nature of corroboration,
effect of corroboration and instances where corroboration will or must be
required among others.