CORROBORATION IN
NIGERIA: IS THERE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF CORROBORATION IN
RAPE CASES?*
ABSTRACT
Rape on the prosecutrix leaves a scar on her
soul, but a false accusation of rape on a man may also leave a scar on his
whole personality. Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime
in a society as it is an assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim...a
rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female. Rape shakes the very
core of her life. Rape is tantamount to a serious blow to the supreme honour of
a woman, and offends, both her esteem and dignity.[1]
This paper examines the procedural requirement of corroboration, in rape cases,
of the evidence of the prosecutrix. The paper wishes to justify, to some
extent, the requirement of corroboration in rape cases.
1. INTRODUCTION
Rape is a sexual
offence, the severity of which cannot be overemphasized. It is an unjustifiable
act in our society. For the purpose of writing this paper, rape here can only
be committed against the female folk.
Thus, under section
357 of the Nigerian Criminal Code Act,[2]
it is provided that any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a ‘’woman
or girl’’ without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent is obtained
by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of
harm, or by means of false and fraudulent representation as to the nature of
the act, or in the case of a married woman, by personating her husband, is
guilty of an offence called rape. The punishment for this heinous and heartless
offence, as provided for under section 358 of the Nigerian Criminal Code, is
imprisonment for live, with or without canning.
In prosecuting the offence of rape, the prosecution must
show that there was penetration, in pursuance of section 6 of the Nigerian
Criminal Code which provides thus:
‘’When the term
‘’carnal knowledge’’ or ‘’carnal connection’’ is used in defining an offence,
it is implied that the offence, so far as regards that element of it, is
complete upon penetration.’’
The court, in Habibu
Musa v. The State,[3]
on the element required to sustain a conviction for rape, stated that:
‘’...penetration, even
if slight or weak, is sufficient to sustain a conviction of rape. That is the
stand of this court and nothing has happened yet for a change of posture from
the court.’’
2. MEANING AND NATURE
OF CORROBORATION
The general rule as regards proof of any fact is that no
particular number of witnesses shall be required for the proof of any fact.[4]
Thus, the requirement of corroboration, for the proof of any fact, is an
exception to this general rule of law.
Corroboration is simply the confirmation of a witness’ evidence
by independent evidence. Corroborative evidence has been defined as:
‘’Evidence supplementary to that already given and tending
to strengthen or confirm it’’[5]
Corroboration, most times, is required as a matter of law
and as such it becomes mandatory that the courts require corroboration to
support the evidence of a witness. However, there are instances where
corroboration is not required as a matter of law but the courts, as a matter of
practice[6],
still require corroboration for the proof of facts. Also, there are instances
where the law merely requires the court to warn itself that it will be unsafe
to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a witness.[7]
For the purpose of corroboration, a witness cannot
corroborate his own statement by repeating the statement[8].
This is as a result of the combined effect of sections 34(2) and 237 of the
Evidence Act, 2011. [9]
Thus, the statement of a witness, though admissible in evidence, cannot be used
to corroborate any former admitted evidence by the witness, but it can be used
for the purpose of showing consistency by the witness and that his testimony is
not an afterthought.
In criminal cases, as regards corroboration of the
prosecution’s evidence, the law is that the evidence tending to confirm or
support the prosecution’s evidence must not only show that a crime has been
committed but it must show that it was the accused that committed the crime.[10]
3. WHY THE
REQUIREMENT OF CORROBORATION IN RAPE CASES?
The offence of rape does not as a matter of law require that
the evidence of the prosecutrix be corroborated, unlike other provisions of the
Nigerian Criminal Code Act, as regards certain sexual offences,[11]
that contain a proviso each stipulating
the following:
‘’A person cannot be
convicted of any of the offences defined in this section upon the
uncorroborated testimony of one witness.’’
However, the courts in Nigeria require corroboration in the
proof of the offence of rape and for subsequent conviction of an accused. Thus,
in Ahmed v. Nigerian Army,[12]
it was held that in a criminal trial, corroboration of evidence is not required
except where the law demands it. This notwithstanding, the court still pointed
out that evidence corroborating the evidence of the victim in a rape case is
not required as a matter of law but is required as a matter of practice.
The question that arises is this ‘’Is there any justification for the requirement of corroboration in
rape cases?’’ This question requires an answer, considering the fact that
the law did not stipulate, in any way, that the evidence of the prosecutix
should be corroborated before it can be able to ground the conviction of an
accused. Thus, why require corroboration
in rape cases?
The Indian court, in the Abbas
Ahmad Chandhary v. State of Assam,[13]
observed thus:
‘’We are conscious of
the fact that in a matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix must be
given primary consideration, but at the same time, the broad principle that the
prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a
case of rape and there can be no presumption that a prosecutix would always
tell the entire story truthfully.’’
The desirability of corroboration in rape cases can never be
overemphasized. Thus, the paramount consideration of the court is to ensure
that miscarriage of justice is prevented.[14]
The Supreme Court of Nigeria, in Habibu Musa v. The State,[15]
has reiterated that it is only desirable that the courts require that the
evidence of the prosecutrix be corroborated, but that it does not mean that the
courts cannot convict an accused based on such evidence of the prosecutix
though uncorroborated. Thus:
‘’...it has to be
restated that in offences of a sexual nature, it is very desirable that the
evidence of the prosecutrix or complaint is buttressed by other pieces of
evidence implicating the accused in a substantial way. This does not detract
from the fact that the court is not hindered from convicting an accused on the
uncorroborated evidence of the complainant.’’
4. CONCLUSION
Rape is a serious crime and should not be encouraged in any
way. The notion that no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court
just to make a humiliating statement against her honour and that her evidence
should not require corroboration is quite commendable. However, the courts
should always bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon.
Finally, it seems that there is justification for the
requirement of corroboration in rape cases and we submit that it should not
just be required as a matter of practice, as the courts can still convict on
the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. Thus, we recommend that
corroboration in rape cases be required as a matter of law. This can be
achieved by revisiting the Nigerian Criminal Code Act, and just like other
sexual offences under the code, adding a proviso to the section that provided
for rape to require for the corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix
before such evidence can be used to convict an accused.
* Aneke Kenechukwu Christopher, 300 level Student,
Faculty of Law, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus. 07053531239
[1]
(2016) Khalid v. The State of UP,
Allahabad High Court
[2] Cap. C38, LFN,2004.
[3] (2013)
LPELR-19932(SC)
[4] Section 200 of the Evidence Act, 2011. See
Abdu Mohammed v. The State(1991) NSCC 265
[5] Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition @ page
344.
[6] Corroboration in rape cases is a perfect
example.
[7] See the proviso to section 198(1) of the Evidence
Act, 2011. It provides that in cases when the only proof against a person
charged with a criminal offence is the evidence of an accomplice,
uncorroborated in any material particular implicating the defendant, the court
shall direct itself that it is unsafe to convict any person upon such evidence.
[8] This
is known as the rule against self corroboration.
[9] Cap. E14, LFN, 2004.
[10] Mbele v. The State(1990) 4 NWLR Pt.45 @ p.484.
see also Francis Okpanefe v. The State(1969) ANLR 411 and Al-Mustapha v. The
State(2013) LPELR-20995(CA)
[11] See sections 218, 221, 223 and 224 of the
Criminal Code Act, Cap. C38 LFN, 2004.
[12] (2011)
1 NWLR,Pt.1227, p.91. see also Posu v. The State(2011) 2 NWLR, Pt.1234, p.393
[13] (2010)
Crl.L.J p.2061
[14] The golden thread which runs through the web
of administration of justice in criminal cases.
[15] Supra.
No comments:
Post a Comment