A Critical Appraisal of Corroboration in the Crime of Rape in the Nigerian Legal System

Abstract

Obtaining justice when a woman is raped continues to generate controversy. Moreover, the corroboration requirement for prosecuting rape and other sexual offences has continued to generate heated debates leading to different approaches by various courts. While cases of rape are on the increase, successful prosecution and conviction are abysmally low. This is probably because the complainant’s evidence requires corroboration by other pieces of evidence implicating the accused in a substantial way for a successful conviction. There have been demands for reform in the substantive and procedural laws that would eradicate the obstacles to proving sexual offences. Reforms that will end the prejudice against women are essential. The belief that it is more dangerous to convict in the absence of corroboration is still held sacrosanct in many jurisdictions, including Nigeria. This article critically appraises the concept of corroboration in the crime of rape and recommends the adoption of best practices existing in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, where it is no longer necessary for the judge or jury to be warned before convicting based on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim once there is credible and convincing evidence.