Corroboration of the oral testimony of a child.

Ezeh Matthew O.


Corroborative evidence is the additional, independent and conforming
evidence required in certain cases either by law or practice in order
to render composite evidence reliable and acceptable to sustain a
judgment.
For a piece of evidence to be corroborative it must:
be legally admissible;
It must come from a source independent of the evidence which requires
corroboration and
It must not only show that an offence was committed but that it was in
fact committed by the accused.
Ahmed v. Nigerian Army (2011) 1NWLR pt 1227, Olaleye v. State (1970)
7NSCC 250 and Uphar v. State (2003) 6NWLR pt. 925 p. 493.

Generally, no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a
fact-Section 200 Evidence Act 2011(hereinafter the Act) - since a
single piece of evidence is enough to prove a case, the important
thing being the quality of evidence that is given - Ogbodu v. State
(1987) 2NWLR (pt 54) p. 20, Oteki v. AG Bendel (1986) 2NWLR pt 648.

Thus the requirement of corroboration is an exception to this rule and
it can be as a result of a rule of law or practice; while the sections
201, 202, 203, 204, 201, 202, 203, 204 and 197 of the Act provide for
specific areas where corroboration is required, section 209(3) of the
Act provides for the requirement of corroboration in the taking of a
child's unsworn testimony. Generally, a child is a competent witness
unless he does not understand the questions put to him and is
incapable of giving rational answers to them-Section 175 of the Act.
However Section 209(1) of the Act provides that where a child who has
not attained the age of 14 is tendered as a witness, he shall not be
sworn and shall give evidence otherwise than on oath or affirmation,
if in the opinion of the court, he is possessed of sufficient
intelligence to justify the reception of his evidence, and understands
the duty of speaking the truth.
Flowing from this section, a child, for the purpose of taking
evidence is a one under 14, as anyone over 14 can give testimony
through the normal process- S. 209(2) of the Act. Secondly, a person
under 14 cannot be sworn and thus must give unsworn evidence, this
is against what was previously obtained under the old Evidence Act
where the courts were empowered to conduct certain tests to determine
whether a child is competent to give testimony on oath or not - Mbele
v. State (1990) 3 NWLR 11. Thus once a child understands and is
capable of answering questions put to him, then if he is over 14 he
shall be sworn but if he is under 14 and in the opinion of the court
is possessed with sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of
his evidence and understands the duty of speaking the truth then his
evidence shall be received but unsworn.

Where the sworn evidence of a child is given, there is no legal duty
to look for corroboration. It is however a 'desirable practice that
the court should look for evidence in such a situation' - Anebamen v.
State (1972) 4 SC. 35 at 38. Akpan v. State (1967) 6 NSCC 111 Mbele v.
State.

Corroboration is required as a matter of law where an unsworn
testimony of a child is given - S. 209 (3) of the Act and the
corroboration required is 'by some other material evidence'. Thus an
unsworn testimony of a child cannot furnish corroboration for another
unsworn testimony of another child since some other material evidence
means evidence other than evidence admitted by virtue of this section
- DPP v. Hester (1972) AC 296, State v. Awode (1971) 1ULR 378.

However, an unsworn testimony of a child can be corroborated by a
sworn evidence of another child - DPP v. Hester, DPP v. Kilbourne
(1973) 2 WLR 254, Okoyomon v. State (1973) 1 SC 21 and vice versa.

In cases where one piece of evidence requires corroboration for two
reasons e.g where a child is giving evidence of a sexual offences
case, a single corroboration will suffice.

In conclusion, the specification of 14 years as the age that
determines whether a child is sworn or not settles the conflicting
decisions of the courts in Okon v. State (1988) 1 NSCC 156 and Dagoya
v. State (2006) NWLR pt 980 637 as to the age which determines whether
a person is a child or not. It however hoped that further amendments
are made to enable an unsworn evidence of a child to corroborate
another child's unsworn testimony.