With regard to the offence of rape, the Courts have always looked for some independent evidence to show that the account of the prosecutrix is true i.e. that the offence was committed and that it was committed by the accused person. See: Posu Vs The State (supra). This is particularly pertinent in this case where the prosecutrix was a child of tender age. Notwithstanding the fact that the Court had satisfied itself that she understood the duty of speaking the truth as required by Section 209 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, by virtue of Section 209 (3) of the Act, her evidence required corroboration. Depending on the facts of the case, where the accused person denies the charge, some of the corroborative evidence may include but not limited to:
(a) Medical evidence showing injury to the private part or other parts of the prosecutrix's body which may have been occasioned in a struggle; or
(b) Semen stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused or on the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed.
See: Posu vs The State (supra); Afor Lucky vs The State (2016) LPELR – 40541 (SC); Isa Vs Kano State (supra).
Now, let me restate what a corroborative evidence is. It is evidence independent of that which it strengthens and discloses not only the commission of an offence but equally links or tends to link the accused with the commission of the offence. It is, put differently, evidence which confirms in some material particular not only that the crime has been committed but, addedly, that it is the accused who committed it.
Corroborative evidence may be direct or circumstantial. In whatever form it comes, the Court must ensure that the corroborating evidence is not only independent of the main evidence it seeks to corroborate but also supports the main evidence by rendering the story of the latter implicating the accused more probable in some material particular. See Omisade & Ors v. The Queen (1964) 1 ALL NLR 233 at 253, Okabichi v. State (1975) 3 SC, Mbele v. State (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt 145) 484, and The State v. James Gwongwan (2015) LPELR- 24837 (SC).
In Edwin Ezigbo v. The State (2012) LPELR-7855 (SC). This Court per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was now CJN) held as follows:
"Corroboration in respect of the offence of rape is evidence which tends to show that the story of the prosecutrix that the accused committed the crime is true."
I seek to draw attention that the evidence of PW1 and Exhibit B1 also corroborate each other that the PW1 met the appellant on the way when the appellant informed the PW1 of the deceaseds death. It was held in the case of Musa v. State (2013) 3 SCM page 79 at page 85 that corroboration means confirmation or support by additional evidence; the corroboration need not consist of direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence nor need it amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witnesses, provided it corroborates the evidence in some respects material to the charge in issue.
Counsel appears lo labour heavily under some misconception in his argument; that even though in proof of the ingredients of crime, the prosecution is not obliged to call a host of witnesses, and that, however, where there are vital witnesses; the failure to call those vital witnesses could weaken the case of the prosecution as it could create reasonable doubt. ISA v. STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (pt.1218) – relied heavily for this robust submission, does not repudiate the age old principle that an accused can be convicted on a clear and unimpeachable evidence of a single witness, unless such witness or his evidence needs to be corroborated as a matter of law. The prosecution, where there is no requirement of corroboration as a matter of law, does not need to call a host of witnesses once the credible evidence of a single witness proves all the ingredients of the offence charged. There would only be need to call more witnesses whose evidence would sway the Court if, and only if, the available evidence does not to conclusively prove the ingredients of the offence charged.
The meaning of corroboration as stated by Lord Reading CJ in Rex v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658 adopted by this Court in Okabichi v. State (1975) 3 SC 96 is captured as follows-
We hold that evidence in corroboration must be independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime – It must be evidence which anticipates him, that is, which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed but also that the prisoner committed it–Corroborative evidence is evidence, which shows or tends to show that the story ... that the accused committed the crime is true, not merely that the crime has been committed but that it was committed by him.
In the said Okabichi V. State (supra), Coker, JSC added that-
Corroboration is evidence which may be direct or circumstantial but in any case, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain that whatever evidence is – used or regarded as corroboration is independent of the evidence to be corroborated and is such as supports the story of the main evidence to the effect that it renders the story more probable that it implicates the accused in some material particular –No stereotyped category of evidence is envisaged and a great deal depends on the circumstances of each case for what may in a given set of circumstances amount to corroboration may not be so in another set of circumstances.
A confessional statement made by an accused person and properly admitted in law is the best guide to the truth of the role played by him and upon which alone the Court can convict. Where there are facts and circumstances outside the confession which make it probable that the confession is true, the Court can convict upon the confession and those additional facts and circumstances. Corroboration means confirmation or support by additional evidence. Therefore corroboration need not consist of direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence, nor need it amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness. It is sufficient if it corroborates the evidence in some respects material to the charge in issue. See KOLADE V STATE(2017) 8 NWLR (Prt 1566) 60 at 95. In DAGAYYA V. STATE (2006) 7 NWLR (Prt 980) 637, it was held that evidence corroborating a confession, could be direct or circumstantial. And in the instant case, there were facts and circumstances which tended to corroborate aspects of the confession.
Counsel appears lo labour heavily under some misconception in his argument; that even though in proof of the ingredients of crime, the prosecution is not obliged to call a host of witnesses, and that, however, where there are vital witnesses; the failure to call those vital witnesses could weaken the case of the prosecution as it could create reasonable doubt. ISA v. STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (pt.1218) – relied heavily for this robust submission, does not repudiate the age old principle that an accused can be convicted on a clear and unimpeachable evidence of a single witness, unless such witness or his evidence needs to be corroborated as a matter of law. The prosecution, where there is no requirement of corroboration as a matter of law, does not need to call a host of witnesses once the credible evidence of a single witness proves all the ingredients of the offence charged. There would only be need to call more witnesses whose evidence would sway the Court if, and only if, the available evidence does not to conclusively prove the ingredients of the offence charged.
AMADI V. ATTORNEY- GENERAL OF IMO STATE LGC(10/2/2017)B
Relying on OKORO v. STATE (1998) 14 NWLR (pt.584) 181 at 216; ADELUMOLA v. THE STATE (1988) 1 NWLR (pt.73) 683 at 691; ANTHONY IGBO v. THE STATE (1975) 1 ALL NLR (pt.2)70 at 75; ALI & ANOR. v. THE STATE (1988) NWLR (pt.68) 1 and EMINE v. THE STATE (1991) 7 NWLR (pt.204) 480; the Court of Appeal opined, correctly in law, that no law says that an accused person cannot be convicted on the clear and unimpeachable evidence of a single witness, and such evidence does not require corroboration. I agree entirely. The Appellants counsel also concedes this lucid position of the law.
However, outside the confession, it is desirable to have some corroborative evidence, no matter how slight, of circumstances which make it probable that the said confession is true and correct. The reason for this prescription is simple: Courts are not generally disposed to act on a confession without testing the truth thereof, Onochie and Ors v The Republic (1966) NMLR 307; R v. Sykes (1913) 8 CAR 233,236.
For the purpose of the test, the Court would be expected to consider the question: whether the accused person had the opportunity of committing the offence charged and whether the confession was consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proved at the trial?
There are actually several cases on this point. However, only a handful will be cited here, Queen v. Obiasa(1962) 1 ANLR 65; [1962] 2 SCNLR 402; Ikpasa v. Attorney-General of Bendel State [1981] 9 SC 7; Akpan v The State (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 248) 439, 460; [1992] 7 SCNJ 22; Kanu v The King (1952) 14 WACA 30; The Queen v. Obiasa (1962) 1 All NLR 651; [1962] 1 SCNLR 137; Obosi v The State (1965) NMLR 129; Jafiya Kopa v. The State (1971) 1 All NLR 750, Dawa v The State [1980] B -11 SC 236; Ejinima v The State [1991] 5 LRCN 1640, 1677; Arthur Onyejekwe v The State (1992) 4 SCNJ 1, 9; [1992] 3 NWLR (Pt. 230) 444; Aiguoreghian and Anor. v. The State (2004) 3 NWLR (pt 860) 367; (2004) 1 SCNJ 65; [2004] 1Sc (pt.1) 65.
Where the offence of rape is denied by the accused, the evidence of corroboration that the Court must look for are:
1. Medical evidence showing injury to the private part or to other parts of the body of the prosecutrix which may have been occasioned in a struggle.
2. Semen stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused or on the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed.
THE STATE V. MASIGA (TSOLO):LGC(15/12/2017)J
In HABIBU MUSA VS THE STATE (2013) 8 NCC 464 this Court held that:
"Generally, it is not a rule of law that an accused person in a charge of rape cannot be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecution. It has however been clearly established in the rule of practice that the proper direction is that not being safe, the Court is expected to warn itself. After the due warning and the Court is satisfied with the truth of evidence of the prosecution the accused can be convicted without looking for any other corroboration."
THE STATE V. MASIGA (TSOLO):LGC(15/12/2017)D
However, it is also settled that it is desirable that the Court should, outside the confessional statement look for some corroborative evidence, no matter how slight."
In the case at hand, there is nothing outside the alleged statement to corroborate the confessional statement. I hold that the learned trial Judge erred in law when he convicted Respondent based on the retracted confessional statement without any corroboration.
THE STATE V. MASIGA (TSOLO):LGC(15/12/2017)D
Corroboration is independent evidence that confirms or makes more certain the testimony of the child. Admission by the accused person that he committed the offence may amount to corroboration. See State v. Essien (1974) 4 University of Ife L.R.P. 127
It was contended by the appellant that there was nothing to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix. This court, in Oludotun Ogunbayo v. The State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt.1035) 157 held that corroboration is not a technical term or art, but means no more than evidence, tending to confirm, support and strengthen other evidence sought to be corroborated. It was further held that it need not consist of direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence, nor need it amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness, provided that it corroborates the evidence in some respects material to the charge. See also Iko V. The State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt.732) 221.
The meaning of the legal term "corroboration as stated by Lord Reading, CJ, in Rex v Baskerville (1916) 2 KB 658, which was approved and adopted by this Court in Okabichi v. State (1975) 3 SC 96, is aptly captured as follows-
Evidence in corroboration must be independent testimony, which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime It must be evidence, which implicate him, that is, which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed, but also that the prisoner committed it. Corroborative evidence is evidence, which shows or tends to show that the story... that the Accused committed the crime is true, not merely that the crime has been committed, but that it was committed by him.
In the said Okabichi V. State (supra), Coker, JSC, further stated as follows
Corroboration is evidence, which may be direct or circumstantial but in any case, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain that whatever evidence is used or regarded as corroboration is independent of the evidence to be corroborated and is such as supports the story of the main evidence to the effect that it renders the story more probable that it implicates the accused in some material particular No stereotyped category of evidence is envisaged and a great deal depends on the circumstances of each case for what may in a given set of circumstances amount to corroboration may not be so in another set of circumstances.
However, outside the confession, it is desirable to have some corroborative evidence, no matter how slight, of circumstances which make it probable that the said confession is true and correct. The reason for this prescription is simple: Courts are not, generally, disposed to act on a confession without testing the truth thereof, Onochie and Ors v. The Republic (1966) NMLR 307; R v. Sykes (1913) 8 CAR 233, 236.
There is no law or statutory provision that in rape cases, evidence of the prosecutrix must be corroborated. However, it is a rule of prudence and the settled course of practice by the Court to seek for corroboration in rape cases. See Posu v. The State 2011) 3 NWLR (pt. 1234) 393, Okoyomon v. The State (1973) NSCC, Isa v. The State (2016) LPELR – 40011 (SC), Ezigbo v The State (2012) 16 NWLR (pt. 1326) 318 Sambo v. The State (1993) 6 NWLR (pt. 300) 399.
What is corroboration? Corroboration is evidence which supports the victims testimony.
When it is said that the evidence of the prosecutrix was corroborated by independent witnesses, it means that the evidence of the witnesses, supports the evidence of the prosecutrix. Then the evidence of the prosecutrix has been sufficiently corroborated.
In a case of rape, corroboration is not required but it is considered unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. See State v. Ogwudiegwu & Anor 1968 NMLR p. 113.
As shown above, even prior to the amendment of the Evidence Act in 2011, the liberal posture of this Court was that it was not the rule of law that an accused person in a charge of rape could not be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix, Shuaibu v. State (supra); Iko v. State (supra); Ogunbayo v. State (supra); Habibu v. State (supra) etc.
In the use of corroborative evidence however little or slight it may be there is no rule as to what a corroborative piece of evidence is and how it can be applied. This is because the trial judge is best suited to make use of the evidence being well situated and having the opportunity and singular privileege of hearing first hand the witnesses, considering their demeanour including that of the appellant. Also, where there was enough on ground from which the trial judge can reach a decision then there is no need to warn itself of the danger of acting on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. That in this case any way it is not necessary since there was corroborative evidence in the confessional statement, 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)
Even if as the counsel wants the Court to believe that there is no corroboration, which I hold there is, however, in Ogunbayo v. State (supra) it was held that it is not a rule of law that an accused person in a charge of rape cannot be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no statute foisting on the Prosecution a duty to provide evidence of corroboration before an accused person can be convicted for the offence of rape.
[pages 258 – 261; italics supplied for emphasis]
It has been held that the corroborative evidence need not consist of direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence nor does it amount to a confirmation of the whole evidence of the witness, provided that it corroborates the evidence in some respect material to the charge in issue, Edet Okon Iko v. State (2001) 7 SCNJ 391.
In a rape case, corroboration means evidence which confirms the evidence of the prosecutrix. It is that evidence which tends to show that the story of the victim, the prosecutrix, is true and that it is the accused person that committed the crime. Such evidence need not be direct as this may not be possible as rape is not committed in the open. It is enough if it corroborates the said evidence in some material particular to the charge in question. However, where the child is a minor of some discernible age, her sworn evidence need no further corroboration.
The Court cited, with approval, the decision in Ogunbayo v. 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 in which corroboration is required by law and procedure. But the Court should warn itself of the danger of convicting an accused on rape in uncorroborated evidence. Second, an accused person cannot be convicted unless the evidence of the prosecutrix 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 complainant. 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 without corroboration, and in this regard an early report of the commission of the offence is not tantamount to corroboration. Similarly, in Sambo v. The State (1993) 6 NWLR (pt. 300) 399, this Court held ... that it is the law that before the prosecution can secure conviction for the offence of rape, the evidence of the prosecuting (the victim of the rape) must be corroborated in some material particular that sexual intercourse did take place and that it was...
My learned brother, Chima Centus Nweze, JSC in the lead judgment, with which I entirely agree, has painstakingly examined the decided authorities of this Court on the issue and rightly concluded that as the case law on rape has developed, corroboration of the evidence of a complainant or prosecutrix, while desirable, is not required by law. See: Isa Vs. The State (2016) LPELR – 4001 (SC); Habibu Musa vs. The State (2013) LPELR – 19932 (SC); Ogunbayo vs. The State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt.1035) 157.
My noble Lords, in Isa v. The State (2016) LPELR 40011 (SC), I dealt with this issue of corroboration in rape cases. Permit me therefore to refer to and adopt my views thereon, as part of my leading judgement in this case. In the said case, I observed that: Now, prior to the amendment of Nigeria's Evidence Act in 2011, scholars and other text writers had greeted, with forceful disapprobation, the practice which required corroboration of the evidence of a rape victim, see, for example, Justice Ngozi Oji, "Proof of Sexual Offences in Nigeria," in UNIZIK Law Journal, Vol 7, No 1, 2010, 302 326; Y. Osinbajo, Cases and Materials on Nigerian Law of Evidence (Lagos Macmillan Nigeria Publishers Ltd, 1992) 326; T. A. Aguda, Criminal Law and Procedure of the Six Southern States of Nigeria, 756-757; O. S. Oyelede, "Corroboration", in Akintola and Adedeji (eds), Nigerian Law of Evidence: A Book of Readings (Ibadan: University of Ibadan Press, 2006) 116 etc. Their well-taken reservations notwithstanding Courts still clung to the practice of requiring corroboration of the evidence of such a prosecutrix, Okpanefe v. State [1969] ANLR 411; Igbine v. State (1997) 9 NWLR (pt. 519) 101; Iko v. State (2001) 14 NWLR (pt. 732) 221; Afolalu v. State [2010] 16 NWLR (pt. 1220) 584; Ndidi v. State (2005) 17 NWLR (pt. 953) 17.In passing, we acknowledge the beneficial provision of Section 204 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which has effectively bowdlerised sexual offences from the corroboration requirement. Interestingly, in Habibu Musa v. State (2013) LPELR -19932 (SC), this Court noted, most perspicaciously, that: "it has to be restated that in offences of a sexual nature, it is very desirable that the evidence of the prosecutrix or complaint (sic, complainant) 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 uncoroborated...
Also to be stated is that the angle taken by the appellant that the prosecution and later the trial Court relied on the evidence of PW1 alone, is a stand point that would not stand the test of the law or practice as a Court can convict on evidence of one single witness whose testimony can be believed given the circumstances of the case. That is to say that a sole credible witness can establish a case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstances where no corroboration is required. See Akpabio v The State (1994) 7 – 8 SCNJ 429 at 458.
The circumstance of the present case is the existence of a confessional statement retracted at the trial. Can the Court convict on such a confessional statement? The law is that, the Court can convict on a confessional statement retracted at the trial if satisfied that the accused person made the statement and as to the circumstances which give credibility to the contents of the confession. But it is desirable that; before a conviction can properly be based on such a retracted confession, there should be some corroborative evidence outside the confession which would make it probable that the confession was true. See:MUFUTAU AREMU VS. THE STATE (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt.201) 1 at 15; BASSEY VS THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.306) 469 AT 479, OTUFALO VS THE STATE (1968) NMLR 261 at 265 266, NSOFOR VS THE STATE (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt.775) 274 at 293.
However, outside the confession, it is desirable to have some corroborative evidence, no matter how slight of circumstances which make it probable that the said confession is true and correct. The reason for this prescription is simple: Courts are not generally disposed to act on a confession without testing the truth thereof. Onochie and Ors v. The Republic (1966) NMLR 307; R v. Sykes (1913) 8 CAR 233, 236.
In Ogunbayo V. The State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt.10351 157 @ 176 F-G. 177- 178 H-A and 178-179 H – C, it was observed that there is no statutory requirement that the prosecution must provide evidence of corroboration before an accused person can be convicted of the offence of rape. However, the court noted that over time it has become the practice for court's to require some evidence of corroboration. Thus while it is acknowledged that it is desirable that the evidence of the prosecutrix should be strengthened by other evidence implicating the accused person in the commission of the offence, it is not the law that an accused person cannot be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The cases of: Iko V. The State (2001) 14 NWLR (pt. 732) 221; Ibeakanma V. Queen (1963) 2 SCNLR 191; Reekie V. Queen (1954) 14 WACA 501; Sunmonu V. I.G.P. (1957) WRNLR 23 were referred to.
Corroboration need not consist of direct evidence that the accused committed the offence charged, nor need it amount to confirmation of the whole account given by the prosecutrix. It must, however, corroborate the said evidence in some respects material to the charge in question. It is also settled that corroborative evidence must itself be a completely credible evidence."
The law is trite and well established that the Court can admit and safely rely on a retracted confessional statement to convict an accused person once the Court is satisfied that such statement is voluntary, direct, positive, unequivocal and a truthful account of what transpired. The law has however made it desirable for the Court to look for some corroboration outside the confessional statement, to determine if the circumstances made it probable that the confession was true. See Haruna v. A-G, Federation (2012) 9 NWLR (pt. 1306) 419 – Alarape v. State (2001) 5 NWLR (pt. 705) 79 – Osuagwu v.
The state. (2013) 5 NWLR (pt. 1347) 360. JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C
The law is trite as established by the Supreme Court that corroboration need not consist of direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence nor need it amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness, provided that it corroborates the evidence in some respect material to the charge. See OGUNBAYO VS STATE (2007) 8 NWLR PT 1035, PG SC 157 AT 178 PAR E, 179 PARAS A-B. PER EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.
In such an instance, it is the practice that evidence outside the retracted confessional statement be sought to justify a finding of guilt. See Azabada v. State (2014) LPELR – 23017 (SC), (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt.1420) 40 and State v. Gwangwan (2015) LPELR – 24837 (SC), (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt.1477) 600. MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.