Corroboration may be given as a matter of law and similarly may be required just as a matter of practice. by Johnson Yesaya

Corroboration generally, is the independent evidence in addition to the one which had been tendered by the witness, whether oral or circumstantial which tend to support material evidence previously adduced[1].Under the law of evidence, corroboration is a matter of law and not of facts. The aim of corroboration is to prove a matter beyond reasonable doubt by adducing evidence which support another evidence or facts which has already been adduced before court of law[2]. Corroboration is necessary when adduced evidence is weak to prove a matter without doubt or when adduced evidence lack key elements to prove a case before court.

For-example, “ “A”, a witness, testifies that, he was at scene and he saw a man armed with shotgun shooting against a deceased, then “B”, a witness, testifies that, during examination of a deceased corpse, he found bullets which caused the death of a deceased”. In this example, evidence adduced by witness “B” corroborates evidence adduced by witness “A”.

Corroboration can be required by the law or by practice(practice by the judge for so along time that it has become part and parcel of the law). Thus under the law of evidence corroboration is divided into: corroboration as required by the law (statutory requirement)and corroboration as a rule of practice [3].

CORROBORATION AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW

Seditious offence. According to section 34 of the Newspaper Act[4], the court is not allowed to convict any person charged with seditious offence upon the evidence of a single witness. The statute require corroboration of evidence before convincing an accused of seditious offence, the law has set a required number of witnesses to testify in seditious charges before conviction or acquittal. Section 34 provides that,

“No person shall be convicted of an offence under section 32 on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness”.

Evidence on a charge of perjury. According to section 105 of the Penal Code[5], where a person is charged with perjury or subordination of perjury the court cannot convict him solely on the evidence of a single witness. Law set as a legal requirement that, to convict an accused on perjury, the charges need to be proved by several witnesses and not a single witness. This intend to discover the correctness of facts adduced and to prevent fabrication of evidence. It will be easy to discover lies by witnesses by comparing facts and statement they made before court, there is narrow chance to reveal lies by a single witness.

Section 105 of Penal Code[6] provides that, “A court shall not convict a person of perjury or of subornation of perjury solely upon the evidence of one witness as to the falsity of any statement alleged to be false”.

Evidence of a child of tender years. The law requires that the evidence of a child of tender year should be corroborated. However under section 127(3)[7] where the court is satisfied that the child is telling nothing but the truth, and only after warning itself on the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence of a child of tender years, it may proceed to convict. This provision give two positions, one, evidence of a child below fourteen years need to be corroborated with another evidence, two, a court is given power to accept un-corroborated evidence adduced by a child of tender years after satisfying themselves that, a child is saying nothing but the truth.

Confession of co-accused. According to section 33(2)[8] a confession by a co-accused cannot form the basis of a conviction. When two or more persons are being tried jointly for the same offence or for different offences arising out of the same transaction, and a confession of the offence or offences charged made by one of those persons affecting himself and some other of those persons is proved, the court may take that confession into consideration against that other person. But a conviction of an accused person shall not be based solely on a confession by a co-accused.

CORROBORATION AS REQUIRED IN PRACTICE

Dying declaration. A dying declaration is a statement made by a declarant, who is unavailable to testify in court (typically because of the declarant's death), who made the statement under a belief of certain or impending death[9]. The statement must also relate to what the declarant believed to be the cause or circumstances of the declarant's impending death. Section 34 of T.E.A[10]categorize dying declaration as a testimony of a single witness which require corroboration.

In the case of R. v. Mohamed Shedaffa and three others[11], the court held that it is possible for a conviction to proceed upon evidence consisting of a dying declaration only, although it is a rule of practice that a dying declaration requires corroboration before it can be acted upon.

Evidence of a single witness. Section 143 of T.E.A[12]do not set a number of witnesses required to testify on a particular fact, but in practice, it is very difficult to sue successful while having a single witness uncorroborated. In R. v. Chamtigiti[13], it was held that, a trial magistrate acted on evidence of a single witness without warning himself on a danger of convicting an accused on a single witness testimony. Before acting on single witness testimony, the court needs to warns itself on the danger of convicting without corroboration

Sexual offences. Section 127(7)[14], a  court may convict an accused on testimony of a single witness after examining credibility of a witness, be that of the child of tender years or of the victim of the sexual offence. The court has to satisfy itself that the witness is telling nothing but the truth, the court has to record its reasons for the decision. In case court fail to determine credibility of a single testifying witness, corroboration is necessary.

Retracted/repudiated confession. During trial, accused may repudiate a confession he/she made before police officer or Justice of peace. The case of Hamis Athuman and two others v. R[15]empower court to convict accused person on confession he/she entered if there is enough reasons to believe the confession was nothing but the truth. This means that, a trial magistrate corroborate evidence adduced before trial to confession entered by an accused before police officer or Justice of peace.

CONCLUSION

Corroboration reduce unjust convictions which may be entered on evidence which do not prove offence beyond reasonable doubt. There is a chance for trial magistrates of judges to convict accused on un-corroborated evidence, but a rule of credibility of a witness must apply to determine the truth of a testimony. A child of a tender age or a victim of sexual offences can testify as a single witness in a case, but a court is given duty under the law to assess and record the reasons which influenced a court to believe what testified by a single witness in a case is nothing but the truth, before conviction on a single witness, court is to warns itself on the danger of convicting an accused on testimony of one and only witness.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

ARTICLES

KahsayDebesu&AndualemEshetu, (2012) Meaning, nature and purpose of Evidence law

BOOKS

Abhinav Prakash, (2012), Law of Evidence, Universal Law Publishing Co. PVT. LTD, New Delhi

L. B Curzon, (2002), Dictionary of Law, 6th Ed, Pearson Education Limited, England

Vepa P. Sarathi, (2013), Law of Evidence, 6th Ed, Eastern Book Company, New Delhi

STATUTES

The Evidence Act [CAP 6 R.E 2002]

The Penal Code [CAP 16 R.E 2002]

CASES

Dr. Kakonge v Christine Bitabeiho, Civil Suit No. 755 of 1992 (HC) Uganda

Prof. Dr. Costa Rick Mahalu& Grace Martin v Republic, Criminal Case No 1 of 2007

Jonas Nkize v Republic (1992) TLR 213

John Makindi v Republic [ 1961]  EA

---

[1]https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corroboration

[2]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corroboration

[3]S.Mshana, Law of Evidence, Dar-es-salaam police academy, 2008

[4]Cap. 299, R.E. 2002

[5]Cap 16 R:E 2002

[6]Ibid

[7]The Evidence Act, Cap 6, R:E 2009

[8]Ibid

[9]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dying_declaration

[10] Ibid

[11] [1983] TLR 95

[12] Ibid

[13](1970) HCD n. 343

[14] Ibid

[15][1993] TLR 110