LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Corroboration – Statements Made to Police in Course of Investigation – Use of Such Statements
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Exhibits A, B and C which were mere statements by PW1 to the Police in the course of investigation, cannot in law, corroborate the oral evidence of PW1. I believe that the statement may only be used when PW1 decided to be funny and turn himself into a hostile witness, in which case the contents of the statements may be used to cross-examine him and no more.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kalgo, JSC, in Hassan v. State (2001) NLC-2812000(SC) at pp. 14–15; Paras E–A.
"Exhibits A, B and C which were mere statements by PW1 to the Police in the course of investigation, cannot in law, corroborate the oral evidence of PW1. I believe that the statement may only be used when PW1 decided to be funny and turn himself into a hostile witness, in which case the contents of the statements may be used to cross-examine him and no more."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A witness’s prior statement to police during investigation cannot corroborate that same witness’s oral testimony in court. Corroboration requires independent evidence from a different source. Prior consistent statements are not corroboration. The only proper use of such statements is to cross-examine a hostile witness—to impeach credibility by showing inconsistency. They cannot be used as substantive evidence to support the witness’s testimony. This prevents self-corroboration, which is logically circular. Corroboration must come from an independent source, not the same witness repeating themselves. The rule ensures that corroboration genuinely strengthens the case.