corroboration

It simply means that an evidence is confirmed or supported by an additional evidence. When an original evidence given is supplemented by an additional evidence so as to strengthen or confirm the original evidence given, it is said to have been corroborated.

Corroboration is basically an additional evidence usually of different or independent character from the original evidence given, yet it nevertheless flows to same point or conclusion as the original evidence given. When for instance ‘A’s’ testimony agrees with the earlier testimony of ‘B’, the testimony of ‘A’ is said to have corroborated that of ‘B’. See Stephen V. State (2013) 3-4 M.J.S.C (Pt. 2) 159; Muhammadu V The State (2020)HELAR ratio 4

Not really. The fact that an original evidence is confirmed by a subsequent evidence is not sufficient enough to amount to a corroboration. For a subsequent evidence to amount to corroboration, it must not only confirm to the previous evidence given, it must also strengthen it. In other words, the essential relevant ingredients of the first evidence vis-à-vis the particular issue or issues in controversy, must be confirmed by the second corroborating evidence.

It must be independent of the original evidence it confirms and strengthens.

Where the proceeding is criminal in nature, a corroborative evidence must not only disclose the commission of an offence, it must as a matter of fact link or tend to link the accused person with the commission of the offence.

Natasha V. State (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 898) 153-154; R V. Omisade (1964) 1 All NLR 233; Muhammadu V The State (2020)HELAR ratio 4

A corroborative evidence need not be direct before it can be valid. In fact, a corroborative evidence can be circumstantial or even in any form. It need not even confirm the whole account or original evidence given previously. What corroboration requires is that it corroborates the original evidence in same material respect to the charge in issue, it is independent of the main evidence it seeks to corroborate and that it supports the main evidence by rendering the story of the main evidence more probable.

Natasha V. State (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 898) 153-154; Kolade V. State (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 889) 471; Muhammadu V The State (2020)HELAR ratio 4; Olumuyiwa V. The State (2019) HELAR ratio 9

As stated earlier, corroborative evidence need not be direct. It could be circumstantial or in any form as long as it satisfies the requirements stated above. Where a complainant testifies for instance that the accused person indeed raped her, such statement will be one which is sufficiently corroborated where there is a medical report or a hospital registration card of the complainant confirming the alleged rape or a testimony of an eye witness who says he saw the accused person rape the complainant.

Natasha V. State (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 898) 153-154; Ezigbo V. State (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 638) 847; Muhammadu V The State (2020)HELAR ratio 4; Olumuyiwa V. The State (2019) HELAR ratio 9

Traditional evidence need not be corroborated. Where traditional evidence is adduced by a party in support of his claim to a piece of land, such party is not obliged to corroborate the piece of traditional evidence given. There is no requirement of the law either in the Evidence Act or even from decided authorities that evidence of traditional history must be corroborated.

Amadi V. Amadi (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 626) 577-579;

It is very convenient and legally okay for the court to convict an accused person on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Where the court proceeds to convict an accused person on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, same is not illegal. However, it is not totally safe for the court to do this. When the only proof against a person charged with a criminal offence is the evidence of an accomplice and such evidence is not corroborated by some material evidence implicating the accused, the court is expected to caution itself because of how unsafe it is to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. See Section 198(1) Evidence Act, 2011; Makay & Anor v. The State (1968) NSCC 87 SC.

No. Where a person intends to sue another for breach of promise to marry, such person must have sufficient material corroboration to put up his or her claim. There must be some material evidence. However, the fact that ‘A’ did not answer letters affirming that he had promised to marry ‘B’ does not amount to a corroboration or admission of the allegation. If ‘A’ for instance having promised to marry ‘B’ proceed to abandon ‘B’ at the alter this will amount to sufficient corroboration of ‘A’s’ earlier promise.

Section 197 Evidence Act, 2011.

Corroboration will be required in the following instances:

Where a person is charged with treason or felonies except on his own plea of guilty.

For an offence of perjury.

Road traffic violation offences.

Sedition.

Defilement of girls under the age of 13 years.

Sections 201-204 Evidence Act, 2011. Section 218 Criminal Code Act, Cap.C38 LFN, 2004