CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CORROBORATION UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW OF EVIDENCE

ABSTRACT

There is no legal requirement that the prosecution or the plaintiff present a million witnesses or pieces of evidence in order to win their case. Just one witness can result in a conviction in court. There are few exceptions, but generally speaking, a single piece of credible, persuasive evidence is sufficient to find a defendant guilty in a court of law. The situations that this knowledgeable person is referring to are those in which a judge will need to obtain confirmation before making a decision. A court may find an accomplice guilty based only on uncorroborated evidence, but he must exercise caution before doing so. In fact, the judge is recommended to look for supporting evidence before finding an accused person guilty because failing to do so may result in his judgement being overturned on appeal. Corroboration typically carves out a niche for itself and is applied in both criminal and civil proceedings. Additionally, it will list court rulings on numerous matters pertaining to corroboration as well as the opinions of the judges on the matter. In the legal system, corroboration is both popular and contentious. This is mostly because judges interpret the criminal and penal laws, as well as the Evidence Act, when it comes to the corroboration of evidence. The main goal of this paper is to critically assess the acceptability of corroboration under Nigerian evidence law, which is a requirement in some criminal and civil trials. Therefore, using primarily primary and secondary sources of Nigerian law of evidence, this work will clarify what corroboration means in Nigeria and Canada in general, as well as the role that judges play in deciding civil and criminal cases and various statutory provisions pertaining to corroboration of evidence in Nigeria.