COURT
OF APPEAL REVISES THE LAW OF CORROBORATION IN RAPE CASES 
In
this edition of HTFB, LawAfrica's Augustine Mwanzia focusses
on a recent Court of Appeal decision Mukungu v Republic
(Selected for Publication in [2003] 2 EA but currently available
to LLR Subscribers) which declared the requirement for corroboration
in sexual offences affecting adult women and girls as unconstitutional
to the extent that the requirement is against them as women
or girls i.e. its discriminatory (section 82 of the Constitution).
In
the month of May 2003, there was furore and outcry over a decision
of Etyang J where a man accused of rape was acquitted
because of lack of medical evidence connecting him to the crime.
The Learned Judge was of the view that independent medical evidence
including DNA test should have been tendered to corroborate
the complainant’s story. Well, we live in a society which is
constantly in a state of flux and it becomes incumbent upon
the law makers and judiciary to reflect these societal changes
in the law otherwise the law loses its relevance.
Corroboration
has been said to be independent testimony which affects the
accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime,
confirming in some material particular not only the evidence
that the crime has been committed but also that the accused
committed it (Republic v Manilal Ishwerlal Purohit
[1949] 9 EACA 58, 61).
The
practice of requiring corroboration in sexual offences has been,
since time immemorial, applied haphazardly with some decisions
holding that conviction cannot be had without corroboration
whereas in others it was held conviction can be had but only
where the trial court warns itself of the danger of convicting
on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant. In the former
class falls such cases like Republic v Kirimunyo
[1943] 10 EACA 64, Njuguna Wangurimu v R [1953]
EACA 196, Ongwenya v Republic [1964] EA 129,
Lihutsu v Republic [1983] LLR 3410 (CAK), Maina
v R [1970] EA 370.
Among
those cases where the courts have held that a conviction on
uncorroborated evidence may be had if the court maybe is satisfied,
after duly warning itself on the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated
evidence, of the truth of the complainant’s evidence include
Chila and another v Republic [1967] EA 722,
Republic v Cherop A Kinei and another [1936]
3 EACA 124, Peter Osore v Republic [1981] LLR
2998 (CAK).
The
requirement for corroboration has been necessary, as a matter
of practice, to support the testimony of the complainant. However,
the reason as found in case law may be said to be derogatory
to the female gender. This is what Mwendwa CJ and Madan
JA in Maina v Republic had to say:
“It
has been said again and again that in cases of alleged sexual
offences it is really dangerous to convict on the evidence of
the woman or girl alone. It is dangerous because human experience
has shown that girls and women sometimes tell an entirely false
story which is very easy to fabricate, but extremely difficult
to refute. Such stories are fabricated for all sorts of reasons
and sometimes for no reason at all”.
Ouch!
(Editor)
Yet
again, in Jonathan Asubusa Lihutsu v Republic,
Madan JA said:
“It
has been said again and again that in a case of sexual assault
the complainant’s evidence should normally be corroborated.
Women make accusations of sexual and indecent assaults for all
sorts of reasons”.
The
foregoing is now water under the bridge, for on 30 January 2003,
the Court of Appeal (Kwach, Bosire and O’Kubasu
JJA) sitting in Mombasa in the case of Mukungu
v Republic (Selected for Publication in [2003] 2 EA)
found there was no basis for requiring corroboration of the
victim’s story. The case concerned rape of a lady by a man whom
she allegedly knew before, but not by name. The assailant was
not medically examined, and therefore there was no medical evidence
to connect him to the alleged offence. Neither was there other
independent evidence connecting the accused with the crime save
that there was ample evidence that indeed the complainant had
been raped. The trial court believed the complainant and convicted
the accused. The High Court confirmed, on first appeal, the
lower court’s findings. On a second appeal to the Court of Appeal,
the only point raised by the appellant was that his conviction
was based on uncorroborated evidence.
The
Court of Appeal considered various case law and considered at
length the provisions of section 82 of the Constitution which
provides for the right not to be discriminated against. It then
held:
“The
requirement for corroboration in sexual offences affecting adult
women and girls is unconstitutional to the extent that the requirement
is against them qua women or girls”.
And
in what shall remain a landmark decision and a jewel in this
murky area of criminal practice, the court pronounced:
“We
think that the time has now come to correct what we believe
is a position which the courts have hitherto taken without a
proper basis, if any basis existed for treating female witnesses
differently in sexual cases such basis cannot properly be justified
presently. The framers of the Constitution and Parliament have
not seen the need to make provision to deal with the issue of
corroboration in sexual offences. In the result, we have no
hesitation in holding that decisions which hold that corroboration
is essential in sexual offences before a conviction are no longer
good law as they conflict with section 82 of the Constitution”.
(emphasis added)
A
juridical issue may arise whether a three judge bench has got
power to overrule other decisions of an equal bench of the same
court. But be that as it may, LawAfrica’s task is to inform
you of the important decisions being given by our courts and
which may impact on your practices and businesses one way or
the other.
LawAfrica
thanks the Court of Appeal of Kenya.
Please
send your comments or queries to raphael.msagha@lawafrica.com
or call him on (+254 020) 2722580. Current LLR subscribers may
call Raphael for a copy of the decision.
EA
2002 is out and is currently being distributed to all EA subscribers.
EA 2003 will be out in the last quarter of this year.