It is well-established as a general rule that corroboration of evidence in the course of
judicial proceedings is an absolute necessity only when the law demands it. This is
true even in criminal trials. Trial Courts are free to convict on the evidence of a sole
witness, as long as there is no statute which specifically calls for the contrary.
Although this is the law, one cannot help but inquire as to whether the absolute
requirement for corroboration extends also to tainted witnesses. Admittedly, judicial
decisions generally posit that a trial Judge can convict on the evidence of a tainted
witness if he warns himself as to the safety of doing so and is satisfied with the
evidence; but is this true? Is corroboration not required all the time? This paper sets
out to examine existing case law on the concept of a tainted witness and the nature of
the evidence given by such a witness, in a bid to proffer an answer to these questions
and determine whether a conviction will be quashed if it is based solely on the evidence
of a tainted witness.