Admission of an offence by an accused person to other persons may amount to sufficient corroboration in law. So in R. v. Francis Kufi (1960) WNLR 1, the accused was charged with indecent assault against a young girl of 10 years. It was held, and rightly in my view, that the admission of the offence by the accused to the father of the girl was sufficient corroboration in law.
— Iguh, JSC. Okon Iko v State (2001) – SC.177/2001
SHARE ON
As in law what is admitted need no further proof Kamalu v. Umunna (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt.505) 321 at 326.
— O.O. Adekeye, JCA. Omotunde v. Omotunde (2000) – CA/I/M.57/2000
It therefore follows, in my view, to ask what is the purpose of corroborative evidence In D.P.P. v. Hester (1973) AC 296 at 315, Lord Morris said:- “The purpose of corroboration is not to give validity or credence to evidence which is deficient or suspect or incredible but only to confirm and support that which as evidence is sufficient and satisfactory and credible: and corroborative evidence will only fill its role if it itself is completely credible evidence.”
In law it is true, and as was ably submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant, that for an admission to have probative value it must clearly, precisely and unequivocally express the admitting mind of the person. Thus, an alleged admission lacking in exactness and firmness of purpose would not qualify as an admission. An admission must therefore, be direct and positive to be given the requisite probative weight in the ascription of probative value by the Court.
– PER B. A. GEORGEWILL, J.C.A. ZENITH BANK PLC v. WAILI (2022) – CA/A/964/2020
It is trite that a crucial fact which is admitted does not require further proof as no person would admit a fact which could work against his interest unless it is true.
— J.I. Okoro, JSC. Universal Properties v. Pinnacle Comm. Bank, NJA, Opia, Heritage, Fatogun (SC.332/2008, Friday, April 08, 2022)
More recently in Oteki v. Attorney-General of Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 24) 648 at 664 this court laid it down as follows:- “I think the learned trial Judge applied the correct principles in determining whether or not to rely on the evidence of P.W.1 for the conviction of the appellant. It is now established that a court can convict upon the evidence of one witness without more, if the witness is not an accomplice in the commission of the offence, and his evidence is sufficiently probative of the offence with which the accused has been charged.” See too Sunday Emiator v. The State (1975) 9-11 SC 107 at 112; Anthony Igbo v. The State (1975)9-11 SC 129 at 134: Joshua Alonge v. inspector-General of Police (1959) SCNLR 516;(1959)4 FSC 203.
Thus, where such evidence is by error or otherwise admitted, then it is the duly of the trial court to expunge it in giving its judgment. If it fails to do so, the appeal court will reject such evidence and consider the case in the light of the legally admitted evidence See Owoniyi v. Omotoso (1961) 2 SCNLR 57, (1961) All NLR 304; Alase v. Ilu (1964) 1 All NLR 390. In any event, it is trite that wrongful admission of inadmissible evidence is not of itself a ground for the reversal of any decision. Similarly, the wrongful exclusion of admissible evidence is not of itself a ground for the reversal of any decision. All these are however dependent on the view held by the appeal court on whether the evidence wrongly admitted or wrongly excluded would have the effect of changing the decision even if admitted or excluded.
— I.T. Muhammad JSC. Musa Abubakar v. E.I. Chuks (SC.184/2003, 14 DEC 2007)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry