the determination of the Case. Suffice to say, the Court will set down the
brief Principles of Law that would guide it in considering the Contentions.
As regards the Question of Accomplice, Section 198 of the Evidence Act
2011 (As Amended) regulates who would be considered as an Accomplice,
and what effect he/she’s Evidence would amount to in Law, and it states
thus: - (1) 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 when
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.
(2) In this Section and in Section 199 of this Act, an Accomplice is any
Person who pursuant to Section 7 of the Criminal Code may be deemed to
have taken part in committing the offence as the Defendant or is an
Accessory After the Fact to the Offence, or a Receiver of Stolen Goods.
The term “Accomplice” has received varying Definitions in different cases. In
OZAKI VS STATE (1990) 1 SCNJ 76, it was held that an Accomplice could
be: (a) a Participant in the Actual Crime charged; or (b) a Receiver of
Property of which the Defendant is charged for Stealing; or (c) a Participant
in another Crime alleged to have been committed by the Defendant - where
evidence of such other Crime is admissible to prove system or intent, or to
negative accident. See also POSU VS STATE (2010) ALL FWLR (PART 546)
504; UTTEH VS THE STATE (1992) 2 SCNJ (PART 1) 183; EJIGBADERO
VS THE STATE (1978) 9 – 11 SC and R VS EZECHI (1962) 1 ALL NLR 113,
where it was held thatAn Accessory Before or After the Fact to a Crime is
also an Accomplice, OGUNLANA VS THE STATE (1995) 5 SCNJ 189 @ 120;
EKPO VS THE STATE (1964) 1 ALL NLR 375; AND IDAHOSA VS THE
QUEEN (1965) NMLR 85.
The Decision of the Supreme Court in AMADI VS STATE (1993) 8 NWLR
(PART 314) 644 (SC) seems still relevant, in spite of Section 198(1) of the
54