MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

PRESUMPTION
The gist of Law of Evidence is relevance, weight and admissibility or the proof and
establishment of facts or disproof. A fact is not proved if it is neither proved nor disproved. A
fact is proved when after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist
or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, in the circumstances of the
particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. To this end, a person, who
desires a court to give judgment as to any legal rights or liability dependent in the existence of
facts, which he asserts, must prove that the facts exist as in section 131 of Nigerian Evidence
Act, 2011. Thus it lies not on the party who denies but on him who asserts (affirmatively or
negatively) to prove the facts alleged. The law also provides exceptions to this rule that he who
asserts must prove and would require no evidence of certain facts. Rather, the law permits an
inference or deduction, having regard to the rules of law and practice of courts. Such inferences
or deductions are presumption a kind of invocation of the rule of law, which compels a judge
to reach a particular conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In essence, a
presumption is a substitute for evidence, or one way of establishing a matter other than by
evidence.

The term presumption is used in more than one way in the law of evidence sometimes the term
is simply a method of stating specific rules about the allocation of the burden of proof. The
presumption of innocence refers to the rule that the legal burden of proving guilt rests on the
prosecution in criminal proceeding if the prosecution cannot discharge the burden and required
standard of proof the accused must be acquitted.

Presumptions, like admissions, are inferences as to any facts in issue or relevant facts and
require no prove or evidence to the contrary. But the court, in its discretion, may require facts
(though admitted) to be proved otherwise than by admission. Once the requisites are fulfilled,
the court must draw the necessary presumptions.

What is Judicially Noticed is presumed and like presumptions are exceptions to the rule that he
who asserts must prove. If the court is called upon to take judicial notice of any fact in
contradistinction from presumptions, it may refuse to do so in certain circumstances.

Presumption is an assumption that a fact exists, based on the known or proven existence of
some other fact or group of an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of
some other fact founded upon a previous experience.

A presumption implies that some facts are to be taken and deemed to be so taken without proof
unless the court insists on proof. Most presumptions are rules of evidence which call for certain
result in a given case unless the adversely affected party rebuts it with other evidence. In some
cases, a presumption merely shifts the burden of producing evidence or persuasion to the
opposite party, who can then attempt to overcome the presumption.

Presumptions are merely an evocation of the rule of law compelling a fact finder to reach a
particular conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It otherwise means a
mandatory injunction which the law directs to the person having regards to the rules of law and
practice laid down for the court to use. It is a procedural device which takes the place of
evidence in certain cases until the facts in your presumption are established. Presumption of
law is in fact a preliminary rule of law which may disappear in the face of a rebuttal evidence.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the presumption stands. Presumptions of law
are in reality the rules of law and part of the law itself, and a court may draw precedence

1 Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)

 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

whatever the requisite facts are developed in a trial. They are usually founded upon reason of
public policy social convenience and safety which are unwarranted by a legal experience in the
pursuit of justice. While some of these presumptions have been established as conclusive rules
of law, which are otherwise known as irrebuttable presumptions of law, others are only prima
facie evidence that can be rebutted.

There are three categories of presumptions:

Firstly, there is an irrebuttable presumption of law such as made by the law itself.
Secondly, there is a rebuttable presumption of law, such presumptions are made by due
presumption of law and facts.
Thirdly, there is presumption of fact. In our legal system, where there are no juries, presumption
of law and presumption of facts are made by judges.

Presumptions are either absolute or conclusive, but that is not to say that there are presumptions
of law which are not rebuttable. An irrebuttable presumption of law is defined as upon proof
of any preliminary fact the court must conclude the existence of a presumed fact and no
evidence will be adduced to the contrary. In practice, irrebuttable presumptions are simply rules
of substantive law. Example, it is part of our law that a child under the age of 10 or below 9
cannot be found guilty of an offence. Following the Sexual Offences Act 2019, a girl child
below the age of 18 cannot give consent. Following the Road Traffic Act 2007, a driver in
control of a vehicle is supposed to produce his/her license on demand.

For rebuttable presumptions of law, it is that preliminary fact before the court which must
conclude the existence of presumed fact unless sufficient evidence to the contrary is adduced.
In civil proceedings, rebuttable presumptions are categorized into:
1. Evidential presumption: that is where it places only on an individual the burden
against whom it operates to rebut the existence of a presumed fact. The party
disputing it must only adduce evidence on the point.
2. Persuasive presumption: this place a persuasive or legal burden on the party
against whom it operates. The law of evidence operates on probative material
legally received by which a court or tribunal may be lawfully persuaded of the
falsity or fact thereof, there is a general presumption that a person accused of a
criminal offence is innocent until the contrary is proved. In the case of sanity, an
accused person is presumed sane until the contrary is proved.

Although there are presumptions of law which can be rebutted where these facts are not proved
directly, but are inferred from the facts that have been proved, the inference from the court is
that the facts are irrebuttable. On a probative material, the courts may be lawfully persuaded of
the truth or falsity of a fact in issue. This may involve testimony, writing materials or otherwise
presented to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact. It may
otherwise relate to any specie of proof of probative material legally presented at a trial of issues
by the act of a parties through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, etc. for
the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court to their contention. It was held by a
scholar that “presumption is a general or fundamental rule of evidence that the fact on which a
court can base its decision in any litigation must be proved to exist by the evidence. However,
there are certain matters in which the truth or the existence of which are taken by the court for
granted and do not need to be proved”. For the court to make presumptions, there are certain
requirements which the courts should consider:
Firstly, whenever it is provided by the act or the law that the court may presume a fact, it may
either regard such fact as a proved, unless it is disproved or call for proof itself.

2 Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)

 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

Secondly, wherever it is directed by the law or an act, that the court shall presume a fact, it
shall regard such fact as good unless and until the contrary is proved.
Thirdly, when one fact is directed by an act to be conclusive proof of another, the court shall
on proof of this act regard the other as proof and shall not allow evidence to be given for the
purpose of disproving it. The court is at liberty to either presume the existence of a fact as
proved or disproved, or in the alternative, the court may suo moto call for proof of such set of
facts. The governing word is ‘may’.

The presumption of sanity refers to the rule that a person accursed of an offence is taken to
be sane until he discharges the burden of proving that he was insane at the time of the offence.
The presumption of innocence is sometime used as term in wider sense to donate a major
principal of political morality about the relatively between the state and the citizen. In this
usage the presumption is a normative principle that can generate or support other rules of
evidence. It is not an item of evidence in itself or that it expresses any kind of proposition about
the probability of fact in issue. If a robber is seen the jury will evaluate the evidence in case as
separate team an assumption that the defendant is infact innocent. They take evidence on its
merits to see what conclusion about guilt or innocence can be draw from it.

Provincial presumption: correspond to the common law category of presumption of fact. The
donate a criterion that may be drawn from proof of basic fact of presumption but fact finder is
under no obligation to draw the conclusion even in the absence of any rebutting evidence. The
fact finder is likely to draw the relevant conclusion and accept the preserve fact as true if its
existence is not challenged by the party disputing the presumption. In this way the presumption
imposes a provincial or tactical burden on party against whom it is operating. That party will
generally rebut the pressured fact.

Evidential presumption: they donate a conclusion that must be drawn by the fact finder on
proof of the basic fact of the presumption in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. In
testamentary cases it is said that the testamentary is duly executed but in civil cases this was
seen when a party disputing the Will would have to show that the probabilities were that the
party that made testamentary Will was insane when he made the Will.

In the law of evidence, a presumption of a particular fact can be made without the aid of proof
in some situations. The invocation of a presumption shifts the burden of proof from one party
to the opposing party in a court trial.

There are two types of presumption: rebuttable presumption and conclusive presumption. A
rebuttable presumption is assumed to be true until a person proves otherwise (for example the
presumption of innocence). In contrast, a conclusive (or irrebuttable) presumption cannot be
refuted in any case (such as defence of infancy).

Presumptions are sometimes categorized into two types: presumptions without basic facts,
and presumptions with basic facts. An example of presumption without basic facts is
presumption of innocence. An example of presumption with basic facts is Declared death in
absentia, e.g., the law says if a person has been missing for seven years or more (basic fact),
that person is presumed dead.

Irrebuttable Presumptions (Presumptio Juris et de jure) this type of presumption is

conclusive and incontrovertible and does not admit of evidence in disproof. Examples are: That

3 Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)

 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

a child under the age of seven years is doli incapax, cannot have a guilty mind and therefore
incapable of committing a criminal offence.
Lord Denning thought that it is a misuse of language to describe these types of prescriptions as
conclusive. He described them as:
1. Procedural equivalents of substantive rules, which may have independent
2. Merely meaning that “on the proof of certain facts, the court must draw a particular
inference, whether true or not and it cannot be rebutted INDUSTRIAL AND
GENERAL MORTGAGE CO LTD V LEWIS (1949).

Rebuttable Presumption (Presumptio Juris) This type of presumption must be drawn once
the requisite premises are established. Examples are:
1. That a child who is seven but under twelve years has no mens rea
2. That a person who has not been heard of for seven years by someone who might be
expected to hear of him is presumed dead.

Lord Denning is of the opinion that presumptions are either “Compelling” or “Provisional”.

Compelling Presumptions: these presumptions arise where a party proves facts from which
the Court MUST in law draw an inference in his favour, unless the other side proves the
contrary or proves other facts, which the law recognizes as sufficient to rebut the presumptions.
It requires a strict proof to defeat a compelling presumption.

Provisional Presumptions: these are exceptions to Compelling Presumptions, Examples are:

1. Presumption of innocence
2. Presumption of sanity
3. Presumption of death after seven years

Provisional presumptions are merely guides to the Court in deciding whether to infer the fact
in issue or not. Relevant facts or circumstances are often said to raise a presumption or make a
prima facie case and so they do in the sense that from these the fact in issue may be inferred
but not in the sense that it must be inferred unless the contrary is proved. A suspicion suffices
to counterbalance a provisional presumption.

The presumption of death: a person who has been absent for seven years without explanation
and "gone to parts unknown" is presumed dead at common law. The time period it takes for
the presumption to arise has often been modified by statute.

The presumption of sanity: A person who faces criminal trial is presumed sane until the
opposite is proved. Similarly, a person is presumed to have testamentary capacity until there is
evidence to undermine that presumption

The presumption of innocence: which holds that the prosecution bears the burden of proof in
a criminal case with the result that the accused may be acquitted without putting forward any
evidence.

The presumption of legitimacy or presumption of paternity: which presumes that a husband

is the biological father of a child born to his wife during the marriage, or within nine months
after the marriage is ended by death, legal separation, or divorce. Some jurisdictions also hold
that a presumption of paternity arises when a father accepts a child into his home, or publicly
represents that he is the child's father. GEORGE V GEORGE AND LEWIS 1970-71 ALR

4 Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)

 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

SLS 1 in divorce or matrimonial causes generally where the legitimacy of a child is in issue, a
child born in wedlock is presumed to be a child of the couple. This presumption can however
be rebutted by evidence showing that the parties were living apart and had no access to each
other at the time of the conception.

A presumption of survivorship: has referred to a number of different presumptions. The term

is sometimes used to refer to presumptions that one or another of two persons lived the longer
when they died together in the same accident. The presumption that two or more people who
establish a joint account intend for the survivors to have the assets put into the fund upon the
death of one of the joint account holders has also been called the "presumption of survivorship".

The presumption of mailing: presumes that a properly addressed letter delivered to the post
office or a common carrier was in fact delivered and received by the addressee.

The presumption of fraud or undue influence: arises where a person in a position of trust
over another, such as a guardian or the holder of a power of attorney applies the other person's
assets to his or her own benefit.

The presumption of validity: is another way of expressing a burden of proof the official acts
of courts are presumed valid, and those who would challenge them must overcome this
presumption. This is also termed the presumption of regularity.

Judicial Presumption of certain facts: the Nigerian Evidence Act, Section 167 provides
that:
“Court may presume the existence of any fact which it deems likely to have happened, regard
shall be had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private
business, in their relationship to the facts of the particular case, and in particular the court may
presume that:
1. a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has
received the goods, knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession
2. a thing or state of things, which has been shown to be in existence within a period
shorter than within which such things or state of things usually ceases to exist, is still
in existence;
3. the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;
4. evidence which could be, and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the
person who withholds it; and;
5. when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation
has been presumed.

Presumption of Continuance: this presumption of continuance applies to partnership, sanity,

marriages and life.
• All things are presumed against a wrong doer.
• An employer, who fails to follow the usual safety precautions in his or her trade, is
presumed to be negligent.
• If a person wrongfully takes a thing and detains it or converts it, it is presumed to have
been the best of its kind.
• A ship that is lost within a short time of sailing is presumed to be unseaworthy.

Presumption of Negligence under the doctrine of (Res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for
itself): where a thing is under the management of the defendant or his servants and an accident

5 Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)

 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

occurs, which is such that in the ordinary course of events, it would not have happened if those
who had the management used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.

Equitable presumption or presumption in Equity: where there is a fiduciary relationship,

undue influence is to be presumed against the party in the fiduciary position in matters of
contract and conveyance of property.

Presumption of Regularity: the presumptions which gives validity to acts are favoured, when
any judicial or official act is shown, to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is
presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with and when it is shown that
a person acted in a public capacity, it is presumed that he had been duly appointed and was
entitled so to. When a person in possession of any property is shown to be entitled to the
beneficial ownership of it, there is a presumption that every instrument has been executed
which was the legal duty of his trustees to execute in order to protect his and when a minute is
purported to be signed by the chairman of a company incorporated under the companies Act
and purporting to be a record of proceedings as a meeting of the company or of its directors, it
is presumed, until the contrary is shown, that such meeting was duly held and convened. The
presumption of regularity is also described as omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta (all things are
presumed to have been done rightly).

Preliminary question of fact

This deal with question of admissibility generally. They concern the qualification of a person
to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence which shall be
determined by the court, the court in its determination is not bound by the rules of evidence,
except relating to privileges. It can be conditioned on facts based on relevance. Relevance on
any evidence will depend on the fulfilment of certain questions, facts which the court will admit
or subject to the introduction of evidence sufficient to support the finding of the fulfilment of
any condition. It can also be based on trial by judge and jury, i.e., were hearings on the
admissibility of confession shall in all cases be conducted away from the jury.
Hearings on preliminary matters shall be so conducted when the interest of justice requires or
when an accused relies on his testimony. That instance where the accused testifies on
preliminary matters, he cannot subject himself to cross-examination as to other issues in the
case.

It can also be based on the credibility and weight of the evidence. Generally, the rule does not
allow a party to introduce evidence before the jury the evidence relevant to weight or
credibility. For criminal matter based on the nature of the offence, the matter goes through
preliminary investigation in court based on evidence (blood stains, fingerprints, etc.), so that
all facts gathered will match the accused. For sexual offences, however, the matter will proceed
directly to the high Court instead of going through preliminary investigation. In some criminal
matters, the accused will be arraigned and sent to the High Court because of the sufficiency of
the evidence.

GILBEY CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. V BANGURA 1957-60 ALR SL 81 in cases of

negligence causing personal injury or damages, if res ipsa loquitor is pleaded by the plaintiff,
the presumption can still apply in his favour and entitle him to succeed, though the substantive
allegations of negligence raised in his pleadings fail.

6 Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)

 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

LAMIN V FACKIE 1957-60 ALR SL 194 Where a person assumes control of an injurious
agency, he assumes absolute Ability for damages caused by it and if the nature and
circumstances of the damage is such that it will not happen in the normal cause of events, it
raises the presumption of res ipsa loquitor calling for evidence in rebuttal to be led.

COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS V BASMA 1920-36 ALR SL 428 in all statutory

offences, but for a few exceptions, mens rea or guilty mind is presumed to be an essential
ingredient.

KAMARA V GATEWAH AND MACAULEY 1964-66 ALR SL 508 laid the presumption
of damages upon injury. In civil case for damages for personal injury, the plaintiff by proving
that he incurred injury furnishes prima facie proof of damage, but the damages to be awarded
will be reduced if he does not provide evidence of actual damage.

7 Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)

 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

CORROBORATION
The general rule is that one witness is sufficient to testify for a conviction. In practice, however,
it is usually necessary to have supporting evidence to prove an issue even though a single
witness is sufficient to do so. The classic Definition of Corroboration was given in R V
BASKERVILLE 1916, where it was said that corroboration means supporting or confirming
evidence which implicates the accused in the offence charged in a material particular. It is
independent evidence which implicates the accused. It must be independent, admissible,
credible and it must implicate the accused and, in a material, particular. In one sentence, it
means supporting evidence.

Exceptions: There are instances when corroboration is required as a matter of law and as a
matter of practice.

Corroboration confirmation or support by additional evidence as it is being put by the Black’s

Law Dictionary 7th edition) means Confirmation, ratification, verification, or validity of an
existing evidence in some material particular from another independent witness or witnesses
implicating the accused. It is the evidence that differs from but strengthens or reinforces other
evidence; especially that which needs support. It is a confirmatory or supporting proof of a
matter on which evidence of the same fact has already been or will be given.
Functionally, corroboration is essentially confirmatory or supportive evidence in the sense that
it proves:
1. That a crime has been committed
2. That the accused is implicated in it

Corroboration shows that the evidence of the witness is probably true and that it is reasonably
safe to convict on it. Evidence in corroboration must be independent testimony, which affects
the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. It is not necessary that the
independent witness should confirm everything that the accomplice has said or done. All that
is required is some independent evidence connecting the accused with the crime. A witness
cannot corroborate him or herself; otherwise, it would suffice for one to repeat ones story a
hundred times in order to get a hundred corroboration of it. In essence, the corroboration must
be extraneous and independent of the testifying witness and must connect the accused to the
crime.

The testimony of a witness as to a complaint made to him or her does not amount to a
corroboration of the complaint. The evidence must corroborate the remainder of the evidence
in some material particular.

Generally, Corroboration is not of essence so long as the parties are able to adduce enough
evidence to warrant a verdict. However, the statute creating certain offences has demanded
corroborative evidence as a precondition for a conviction. In some cases, also, the court, as a
matter of practice, makes corroboration necessary.

Corroboration may take any of the following forms:

1. Confession or admission by an accused
2. Evidence of a witness
3. Scientific evidence
4. Destruction of material evidence or exhibit
5. The position of the complainant coupled with the nature of complaint as in sexual
offences.

8 Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)

 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

6. Independent evidence or an earlier similar offence by the accused on the same person.

Corroborative evidence may be oral, written or documentary, real, behaviour or conduct or

other. It may be direct or as in most cases circumstantial. It may also take the form of a
confession, or a lie about a matter or an informal admission. It does not amount to corroboration
that the party or witness gave false names or failed, refused, or neglected to give evidence.
Unreliable evidence requires no corroboration.

In practice, the judge is required to:

1. Examine the whole of the evidence, to see whether there is any
corroboration from the witness of the State that he finds to be corroboration.
2. Expressly caution him and exercise extreme care in determining whether or not to act
on the suspect’s evidence where there is no corroborative evidence.

Corroboration required as a matter of Law: When corroboration is required as a matter of law,

if there is no corroboration of the charge for which the accused is charged, the case must be
dismissed.

Corroboration required as a matter of Practice: When corroboration is required as a matter of

practice, there need not be corroboration, but the judge has the duty of warning the Jury of the
dangers of acting on uncorroborated evidence.

What Forms does it (Corroboration) take?

The general form it takes is to have the evidence of a second witness. It usually consists in the
evidence of another witness. However, at times, corroboration can be in the form of a
document. It can also take the form of blood stains on the clothes or blood tests, urine samples
or semen etc. These are all considered to be forms of independent evidence. Even lies could
amount to corroboration R V LUCAS. However, the fact that someone fails to testify is not
corroboration. The evidence must be independent but also admissible evidence. It must also be
credible.

When Corroboration is required as a matter of Law:

1. Perjury, as prescribed by the Perjury Act 1911; you cannot convict anyone of perjury
unless there is corroboration.
2. Treason, as prescribed by the State Offences Act 1963; you cannot convict anyone of
treason unless there is corroboration.
3. Exceeding the Speed Limit; there must be corroboration.
4. Affiliation Proceedings: E.g., if a man is denying that he is the father of a child, you
can corroborate by DNA.
5. Election Offences: people charged under electoral offences cannot be convicted unless
the charge is corroborated.
6. Unsworn Evidence of a Child.
7. Certain Sexual Offences violating the Sexual Offences Act.

In all of these cases, if there is no corroboration, the case will lapse. When corroboration is
required as a matter of law, the question of whether evidence amounts to corroboration or not
is one for the jury to decide.

S7 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 deals with the procurement of women for the purposes of
prostitution or for unlawful sexual intercourse.

9 Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)

 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

The requirement of corroboration does not apply to rape. For exceeding the speed limit, the
courts allow the speedometer of the police car as corroboration to show that the speeding
occurred as in the case of NICHOLAS V PENNY 1952.

The unsworn evidence of children must be corroborated.

The unsworn evidence of one child does not corroborate the unsworn evidence of another child.
If another child must corroborate the unsworn evidence of another child, it must be
corroborated.

When Corroboration is required as a matter of Practice:

When corroboration is required as a matter of practice, there need not be corroboration, but the
judge has the duty of warning the jury of the dangers of acting on uncorroborated evidence.
This means that if the jury believes the credibility of the evidence before them, they can go
ahead and pass a verdict of conviction or acquittal, provided that the warning has been given
to them. It is for the jury to decide what weight to give the evidence and what inferences to
draw from it. If the warning is not given, it will be a ground for an appeal and it is most likely
that the appeal would succeed, and the conviction will be quashed.

In what circumstances is Corroboration required as a matter of Practice?

1. Where the matter is regarding the sworn evidence of children. When children give
sworn evidence, the jury has to be warned by the judge about the dangers of convicting
without corroboration on that evidence; the judge is warning the jury to approach the
sworn evidence of the child with care and caution.
2. Complaints in some Sexual Offences: there are some sexual offences for which some
people have complained, and the jury should be warned. Apart from those cases where
corroboration is required as a matter of law, in sexual cases generally, the jury must be
warned of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant.
This is because there are times when some women make up a complaint of rape based
on spite, fantasy, or neurosis etc. There are also instances where the complainant has
consented to sex and is then ashamed to admit it. The complainant may tell a false story
which is very easy to fabricate but extremely difficult to refute.
3. Evidence of Accomplices: when an accomplice testifies against someone who
committed a crime, the warning must be given as the accomplice might have his Own
motive not to tell the truth and the danger is that he might implicate them falsely,
minimize his own culpability and exaggerate that of others so that he might have a light
sentence. Therefore, the law takes the view that a warning must begiven when an
accomplice gives evidence for the prosecution DAVIES V DPP 1954.
The definition of accomplice, for the purposes of this DAVIES V DPP 1954 was given by
Lord Simmons where he laid down three (3) classes of persons to be regarded as accomplices:
1. Parties to the offence charged.
2. Receivers as accomplices of the thieves from whom they receive goods.
3. Parties to other offences committed by the accused, evidence of which is admissible to
prove the offence charged.

The Warning: There is no prescribed formula for the warning, but the judge must warn the jury
clearly of the risk of acting on the evidence of an accomplice. He might say to them that an
innocent person may be convicted on the evidence of a person/witness who is not telling the
truth because he is serving his own interest. The warning must take the form of words used
which, in plain language, conveys the seriousness of the risk involved and while the word
'danger' does not have to be used, it is difficult to think of a better expression which conveys

10
Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)
 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

the necessary force. The Rule in DAVIES V DPP 1954 does not apply when an accomplice is
testifying for the defence, R V PRAGER. It is also the duty of the judge to direct the jury as
to what evidence amounts to corroboration. The judge will tell the jury what evidence amounts
to corroboration, and once that has been done, if there is no corroboration, that is virtually the
end of that case. When the judge is directing the jury on corroboration, he must tell them that
corroboration means independent evidence which does not come from the witness, and which
implicates the accused person in some material particular and confirms that it was he or she
who committed the offence. The judge should point out to the evidence which, if the jury
accepts, is capable of amounting to corroboration and then direct the jury that it is for them to
decide whether it does confirm the witness's evidence.

Another form of corroboration is lies; when an accused person tells lies while testifying, it is
possible for that lie to amount to corroboration. The question is, Can Lies Amount to
Corroboration? Yes, provided certain conditions are fulfilled; The Rule in R V LUCAS, Court
of Appeal in certain circumstances, when a witness is testifying in court and he tells a lie, it is
possible for that lie to amount to corroboration and in order to be capable of being
corroboration, four (4) criteria have to be satisfied:
1. The lie must be a deliberate lie.
2. The lie must relate to a material issue.
3. The motive for the lie must be a realization of guilt and a fear for the truth
4. The lie must be clearly shown to be such.

Mutual Corroboration: If a child gives unsworn evidence, she cannot be corroborated by

unsworn evidence. She can only be corroborated by somebody or another child who gives
sworn evidence. And so, there can indeed be mutual corroboration, provided that the unsworn
evidence is complimented by sworn evidence as in DPP V HESTER 1973.

The Nigerian Evidence Act 2011, Section 198 provides that an accomplice shall be a
competent witness against an accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely because it
proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Provided that in cases tried by
a jury when the only proof against a person charged with a criminal offence is the evidence of
an accomplice uncorroborated in any material particular implicating the accused, the judge
shall warn the jury that it is unsafe to convict any person upon such evidence though they have
a legal right to do so and in all other cases, the court shall direct itself.

Complaints of Women who have been assaulted Sexually: If a girl/woman complains to the
police that she has been sexually assaulted, can that complaint amount to corroboration? No,
by itself, that complaint cannot amount to corroboration; it is not independent so that it satisfies
the definition of independence given in R V BASKERVILLE. In R V WHITEHEAD 1929,
the judge said that the complaint of the girl cannot be corroborated by herself, otherwise, it is
only necessary for her to repeat her story some 25 times to get 25 corroborations. In this case,
the girl complained to her mother sometime after the alleged sexual assault had taken place;
the mother testified but the courts rejected this evidence as not being independent because she
was only repeating what her daughter had told her. But it does not mean that such evidence is
useless; it amounts to consistency and may be admissible in evidence thus, in R V CHRISTIE
1914, the question arose as to whether the complaint amounted to corroboration. The court said
no, but the complaint was admissible to show consistency.

Distressed condition of Women: Is the distressed condition of a woman after she has been
roughed up enough to amount to corroboration? The distressed condition by itself cannot

11
Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)
 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

amount to corroboration because it is not independent in accordance with the R V

BASKERVILLE standard; R V REDPATH 1962 here, a little girl was sexually assaulted and
was in a distressed condition. Unknown to the girl, her distress was observed by a 3rd party
and the court allowed the 3rd party to testify as to the girl's condition, as this fit the definition
of independent given in R V BASKERVILLE. In R V CHAUHAN 1981, the victim of the
alleged sexual assault was observed running from the room where she and the accused had
been present. Here again, an independent person had observed her running from the room. The
judge directed the jury that testimony of a 3rd party as to the distressed condition of the
complainant could be treated as independent and, therefore admissible.

In R V. DOWLEY 1983, a considerable period of time had elapsed between the alleged rape
and the observation of the complainant by the 3rd party. The girl had walked for one mile but
was observed by the 3rd party. The court allowed that evidence to amount to being independent
by the standard of R V BASKERVILLE. This was quite controversial as the time elapsed
gave the girl enough time to have fabricated her distress. Dowley appealed and the Court of
Appeal said that they would not interfere with the decision of the High Court judge.

WILLIAMS V R 1957-60 in sexual cases under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act,
Cap. 31. there must be corroboration as a matter of law, evidence of recent complaint made by
the complainant of act of sexual nature against the accused though admissible to show
consistency is not corroboration. The accused was charged with having unlawful carnal
knowledge of a girl under the age of 13, contrary to section 6 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children Act, Cap 31 of the Laws of Sierra Leone, 1960. The girl gave evidence and
described the alleged incident in detail and her mother also confirmed the fact that immediately
after the incident the girl had reported the accused to her that he had had carnal connection with
her. The Medical report confirmed that someone had had connection with the girl. Section 14
of the Act under which the accused was charged required corroboration where there is only
one witness in some material particular.

GEORGE V R 1968-69 in sexual cases it is mandatory that the corroboration warning be given
by the judge in summing up to the jury or himself in clear and unmistakable terms and not only
to say it is essential. It is necessary to point out to the jury or the judge to himself that as a
matter of law, there should be no conviction where no corroboration is. The absence of such
warning or a Judge wrongly itemizing a piece of evidence as corroboration will lead to a
conviction being quashed.

REFELL V R. 1963 in prosecutions for any offence under the Perjury Act, 1911, the witness
cannot be convicted on the evidence of one witness as to the falsity of the statement alleged to
be false.

THOMAS V R 1957-60 the appellant was charged on a 3-count charge sheet with one count
of demanding money and 2 counts of accepting money for providing work contrary to section
15 of the Employers and Employed Act, 1946, Cap. 70 of the laws of Sierra Leone, 1960.
The complainant alleged that he paid the money to the appellant for employment which he did
not provide. At the trial the magistrate found the appellant guilty as charged without treating
the complainant's evidence as requiring corroboration. Three other witnesses testified for the
prosecution whose evidence was tainted by virtue of the fact that they were all involved in the
scheme to give and accept money for providing the work.

12
Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)
 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

Abbot, C.J. in the West African Court of Appeal case of OKEKE V COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE 1948 where it was held that on a charge of demanding or obtaining money under the
colour of employment by a public servant, the payer of the money was not an accomplice but
a victim. "It is necessary however, to deal with the second ground of appeal-that the appellant
was convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices. There is no substance
whatsoever in this ground and it is quite untenable in argument that those who met the monetary
demand of the appellant were accomplices to the demand. Nor, in meeting the demand, could
they be regarded otherwise than as victims of the appellant's rapacity."
ABDUL MUCTARY V R. 1964-66 the judge must not only direct the jury that corroboration
of an accomplice's evidence is important, but he must tell them the meaning of corroboration,
what it is and what it is not. Wrongly itemizing a piece of evidence as corroborative when it is
not would lead to a conviction being quashed. The rule requiring corroboration of accomplice
evidence is a rule of practice and not of law. The judge must always warn the jury about the
dangers of convicting in reliance on accomplice evidence without corroboration. Provided this
warning is given they can still convict on it if they find they choose to do so. An appellate
tribunal will quash the conviction if this warning is not given.

The Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872 Justices in petty session may make an order on
the putative father for maintenance, education, etc., of bastard child, and enforce the same by
distress and commitment. After the birth of such bastard child, on the appearance of the person
so summoned, or on proof that the summon was duly served on such person, or left at his last
place of abode [a reasonable time] before the petty session, the justice in such petty session
shall hear the evidence of such woman and such other evidence as she may produce, and shall
hear any evidence tendered by or on behalf of the person alleged to be the father or not to be
the putative father of such bastard child.

Protection of Women and Girls Act, Cap: 30 of The Laws of Sierra Leone, 1960 Where
on the trial of any person for an offence under this Act, or any of the offences mentioned in the
schedule to this Act, if the court is satisfied by the evidence of a duly qualified medical
practitioner that the attendance before the court of any child in respect of whom the offence is
alleged to have been committed would involve serious danger to the life or health of the child,
any deposition of the child, duly taken, shall be admissible in evidence either for or against the
accused without further proof thereof.

Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, Cap. 31of the Laws of Sierra Leone, 1960 state that
no person shall be convicted of any offence under section 6,7, and 10 of this Act upon the
evidence of one witness unless such witness statement to be corroborated in some material
particular by evidence implicating the accused.

S33 Public Order Act No. 46 of 1965 uncorroborated testimony of one witness only.

S90(2) Sierra Leone Military Forces Act, No. 34 of 1960 Every witness before a court-
martial shall be examined on oath however where the evidence is given on behalf of the
prosecution, the accused shall not be liable to be convicted upon such evidence alone unless it
is corroborated by some other material evidence in support implicating the accused.

BIAKIEN V SANKOH 1970-71

In cases where a claim is made against the estate of a deceased person it is desirable though
not absolutely necessary that there must be corroboration of any evidence setting up that claim.
Any uncorroborated evidence must be treated with caution.

13
Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)
 MARIAM IBRAHIM ANTAR ~ SLLS 2023

14
Mia’s Law of Evidence (Ivan Sesay)