Section
319 of Criminal Code-Question
of corroboration of an
accomplice's evidence
considered.
Held: Corroboration existing,
appeals dismissed.
There is no need to set out the
facts. C. N. S. Pollard
for Crown. Appellants in person.
The following joint judgment was
delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, BUTLER
LLOYD
AND CAREY, JJ.
In this case the three accused
were charged with the murder of
a Hausa man named Mallam Garuba
Katsina.The principal evidence
against them was that of the
third witness Mbom Nwage. He was
undoubtedly an accomplice in the
crime and the question was
whether there was sufficient
corroboration of his evidence to
justify convictions. The learned
trial Judge decided that in the
case of the first accused the
corroboration was insufficient
and discharged him, but in the
case of the other two the trial
Judge found sufficient
corroboration and convicted them
both.
They have now appealed to this
Court. The case of the second
accused (first appellant)
presented no difficulty. At the
trial he gave evidence on oath
and swore alternately that the
murder was committed by the
third witness only, and that it
was committed by the third
witness, the third accused
(second appellant) and himself
together. The man's own evidence
justified the conviction.
The case of the third accused
(second appellant) presents
greater difficulty. He also gave
evidence on oath and admitted
that he and second accused had
helped Mbom to dispose of the
body but denied taking part in
the murder itself. The finding
of fact made by the trial Judge
is that-
" After an abortive attempt on
the life of Yongo (sixth
"witness for prosecution) the
second and third accused. "Aroboh
Mumuna and Magbok IlIa,
accompanied and " assisted by an
unidentified man, not in
custody, on the " 14th day of
December,
1937, at the Abia river bridge
on "the Of un at a-Ban sara."
" road with malice prepense, set
upon and murdered "Mallam Garuba
Katsina an itinerant trader. .
,Thereafter they concealed the
body and the property " of the
deceased."
The trial Judge finds
corroboration of the story of
the accomplice Mbom in the
evidence of Yongo. Before
us the learned counsel for the
Crown has expressed doubts as to
whether the evidence of Y on go
does sufficiently corroborate
the accomplice's evidence so as
to warrant conviction and has
drawn our attention to three
cardinal principles of the law
regarding corroboration of the
evidence of accomplices. 'The
first is that corroboration must
be by an independent witness and
not by another accomplice. The
second is that corroboration
must go to identify the accused
with the crime and not merely to
establish that a crime has been
committed. And the third is that
where there is sufficient
warning d the necessity for
corroboration and matters are
suggested as corroboration which
in fact are not and there is in
fact no corroboration at all, a
conviction may be quashed on
appeal.
We have accordingly given very
careful consideration to the
case of the third accused,
bearing these principles in
mind, but also remembering the
other principle that it is not
necessary that the corroborative
evidence should corroborate the
accomplice's evidence in detail,
but what is essential is that
there should be some independent
evidence which definitely
associates the accused with the
crime. Does the evidence of
Yongo do this? We think that it
does. First it should be
observed that as against the
third accused there is the
evidence not only of one
accomplice--Mbom, but also of a
second, viz., the second
accused. This, if believed and
corroborated, is sufficient of
itself to justify the conviction
of third accused. Looking at the
case as a whole, there can be no
doubt but that the murder was
committed by a gang of whom the
second accused was one. Yongo's
evidence shows that shortly
before the murder the third
accused was at the place of the
murder in company with second
accused and offering violence to
a passer by, it is admitted
that third accused helped to
dispose of the body shortly
after the crime. we think that
this evidence can properly be
held definitely to associate the
third accused with the murder
and to corroborate the evidence
of the two accomplices Mbom and
Aroboh to the died that the
third accused was one of the
gang which committed the murder.