By Sani Abdullahi
The use of medical evidence in rape cases has been a contentious issue, particularly at the higher courts while discarding the inferior courts decisions. Thus, this article delves into the legal standard surrounding medical evidence in rape cases, examining its strengths, limitations, and implications for the pursuit of justice.
Hence, the proper aggregation of evidence (be it forensic or physical) in rape cases entails the gathering and documentation of all evidence related to the offense, which mostly has to do with medical examination and forensic specimen collection; meanwhile, the clinical/medical examination and documentation of a victim(s) is done by a qualified physician.
Having painstakingly read the recent Supreme Court decision of SANI v. STATE (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1867) 77, I have come to appreciate how His Lordship Muhammad Lawal Garba JSC elaborated on methods of proving guilt of an accused person who happens to be a rapist(s).
His Lordship wordings: “The guilt of an accused person can be established in one or more of the following ways:
(a) A confessional statement of the accused person.
(b) circumstantial evidence.
(c) The testimony of eyewitnesses or eyewitnesses.”
Furthermore, I truly admire His Lordship Fatayi-Willaiams’s submission in the case of IGHO v. STATE (1978) 3 SC 42, where it was held that:
“Medical evidence is not conclusive proof of rape, but rather corroborative evidence.” (of blessed memory to his Lordship).
Hence, the case of ISHAYAKU HABIBU v. STATE (2024) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1935) 483 has answered the ceaseless question on how to prove an offense of rape and whether medical evidence is mandatory; the Supreme Court answered that Medical evidence in rape cases is not SINE QUA NON for the conviction of an accused person.
The apex court proceeded and held:
“What is required is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony, confessional statements, and/or circumstantial evidence. As long as that is done, the accused person cannot complain because it does not lie in the accused person’s mouth to dictate to the prosecution how to conduct its case.”
Moreover, a medical report is usually necessary where the accused person denies raping the prosecutrix, but even when the commission of the offence is denied, the absence of a medical report does not spell doom for the case of the prosecution, as each case must be considered within its peculiar circumstances.
Importantly, medical evidence only confirms that a rape crime was committed but doesn’t convict the defendant; thus, the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, through His Lordship Kutigi JCA (as then he was), answered on the admissibility of corroborative evidence in the case of IGBINE v. STATE (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 519) 101 held:
“…that corroborative evidence must be evidence that confirms in some material particular not only that the crime has been committed but also that it was the accused who committed it.”
See also the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the case of DANLADI v. STATE (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1698) 342 through Late Honorable Justice OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, J.C.A.
The court submitted with unwavering certainty on the nature of corroborative evidence and thus held:
“That corroborative evidence must be evidence that confirms in some material particular not only that the crime has been committed but also that it was the accused who committed it. In the instant case, assuming without conceding that the medical report amounts to corroboration of the act of the rape as narrated by the victim, the same report does not in any way corroborate her story that it was the appellant who has raped her. It was not a situation where evidence shows that both the victim and rapist have venereal infection.”
Once there was no independent corroborative evidence coming from the prosecution, a medical report alone cannot serve as a corroboration under Section 198 (1) of the Evidence Act—a medical report must go further and state that it’s the accused that raped the victim.
Hence, for clarity of purpose, it is my humble submission that medical evidence is not enough to prove rape virtue under Section 198 (1) of the Evidence Act, which provides:
“An accomplice shall be a competent witness against a defendant, and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice:
Provided that in cases where the only proof against a person charged with a criminal offence is the evidence of an accomplice, uncorroborated in any material particular implicating the defendant. The court shall direct itself that it is unsafe to convict any person upon such evidence.”
About the Author
Sani Abdullahi is a Year Two Law Student from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, with a Strong Interest in Legal Writing and Research. You can reach him at:
Phone Number: 09125630290
Email Address: saniabdollahy@gmail.com
Source: Sabilaw
