You have no items in your shopping cart.
ABSTRACT
The main purpose of this research is to critically analyze the law of corroboration as it relates to Nigerian Law of Evidence. It is not in doubt that the requirement of corroboration is a necessity in certain cases given the peculiarity of the circumstances of those cases. While the Evidence Act 2011 agrees that corroboration is mandatory in certain cases, it is sacrosanct to state that it is not necessary in some cases. Corroboration of evidence as regards sexual offences has been discarded.
Going through the respective instances adumbrated above, one will not fail to see the reason why corroboration is required in some cases, which mainly fall within the ambience, where corroboration is required as matter of practice. For instance, an accomplice who is a party to a crime is most unlikely to feel obliged to tell the truth especially if it would implicate him. This also goes for the testimony of a tainted witness or of a co-accused who may have an interest or purpose of his own to serve. Again, an agent provocateur may develop a personal interest to share in the ‘fruit’ of an offence, and as such may not be concerned with the veracity or authenticity of his evidence. It is only reasonable that corroborative evidence be required for a proper and just determination of the issues. This paper strongly suggests that the question of corroboration should be made an issue of law, exclusively.
