LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Rape – Conviction on Uncorroborated Evidence – When Permissible After Proper Warning
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
I think I ought to state at this stage 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. The proper direction which is now a well established rule of practice is that it is not safe to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix; and the court may after paying due attention to the warning nevertheless convict the accused person if it is satisfied with the truth of her evidence. See I.G.P. v. Sunmonu (1957) WRNLR 23; R. v. Graham (1910) 4 CR. APP. Rep. 218; R. v. Pitts (1913) 8 Cr. App. Rep 126; R. v. Berry (1925) 18 Cr. App. Rep. 65 etc.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Iko v. State (2001) NLC-1772001(SC) at p. 22; Paras D–A.
"I think I ought to state at this stage 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. The proper direction which is now a well established rule of practice is that it is not safe to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix; and the court may after paying due attention to the warning nevertheless convict the accused person if it is satisfied with the truth of her evidence. See I.G.P. v. Sunmonu (1957) WRNLR 23; R. v. Graham (1910) 4 CR. APP. Rep. 218; R. v. Pitts (1913) 8 Cr. App. Rep 126; R. v. Berry (1925) 18 Cr. App. Rep. 65 etc."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
It is not a rule of law that an accused cannot be convicted on uncorroborated rape complaint evidence. The established rule of practice is that it is unsafe to convict without corroboration. After giving the required warning, the court may convict if satisfied the complainant’s evidence is true. The warning is mandatory; conviction without warning may be quashed. The judge must demonstrate awareness of the danger. The court may still convict after proper warning. The principle balances protecting the accused with punishing genuine offences. The judge’s satisfaction must be based on the credibility of the complainant. The appellate court will respect the trial judge’s assessment unless manifestly wrong.
