| Summary: | Includes bibliographical references. === The problem with the corroboration requirement in sexual offences is that it is based on an improper foundation. The proffered rationale, that most complainants lie about sexual offence allegations, cannot be verified from empirical data. Regardless of this fact, due to the rule’s existence, the standard of proof in sexual offence cases is unnecessarily raised above that which normally obtains in other criminal cases, causing convictions in sexual offences very hard to come by. The rule is found to be only premised on discrimination against women. Such being the case, the rule runs counter to the current Constitutional order which is founded on principles of equality before the law, non-discrimination and the dignity of all persons. It is also against the Constitutional commitment of offering women full and effective protection. This paper advocates that such an evidential rule is undesirable for it serves no useful purpose in the adjudication of sexual matters and that the rule is unfairly discriminatory against women and unconstitutional in the present Malawi constitutional regime. It further advocates that the rule should be abolished both by judicial pronouncement and legislatively. Since the corroboration requirement is a common law rule, lessons will be drawn from comparative common law jurisdictions which used to have the rule but have now abolished it, such as South Africa, Namibia, the State of California, Canada and England.
|
|---|
