CRIMINAL LAW — Identification Evidence — Single Witness Conviction — Whether Corroboration Required for Armed Robbery
Principle Statement
An accused person can be convicted on the evidence of a single witness in criminal trials where the offence does not require corroboration as a matter of law. Armed robbery is not one of the offences that require corroboration, and the prosecution is not obliged to call a community of witnesses to prove its case.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Tobi, JSC (dissenting), in Ndidi v. State (2007) NLC-123-128-2005(SC) at p. 23; Para B.
"I do not know of any law which foists on the prosecution to call a village or community of witnesses in a criminal case. All I know is that an accused person cannot be convicted on the evidence of a single witness where the offence requires corroboration. The one in this appeal is not one of them."
Explanation / Scope
The principle addresses the evidential requirement for corroboration in criminal trials. While some offences, such as treason, perjury, and sexual offences, require corroboration as a matter of law or practice, armed robbery does not fall within that category. The prosecution may secure a conviction based on the testimony of a single credible witness, provided the witness is reliable and the evidence is cogent. The court is not required to insist on multiple witnesses to prove the commission of the offence. The principle is rooted in Section 200 of the Evidence Act, which allows conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness where no statutory requirement exists. However, the trial judge must still carefully evaluate the evidence and warn himself of the dangers of convicting on identification evidence, especially where the identification is by a single witness. The principle ensures that justice is not defeated by an artificial requirement for multiple witnesses.
