adduced by the accomplice. Compare Odofin Bello v State (1967) and Malayi v State. In Odofin Bello v the State, the Supreme Court on the requirement that the judge must warn himself said: “The judge must ask himself whether or not he believed the evidence of the accomplice and if he believed it, he must warn himself that it was unsafe to convict on it. He must then look for additional statement or evidence not that of an accomplice rendering it probable, that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is reasonably safe to act on it”. In Malayi v State, the Supreme Court overruled itself and said that warning without more was sufficient. In the case of R. v OMISADE & ORS. [1964] 1 ALL NLR 233 AT 249, the Supreme court decided that as regards an overt act, it is not necessary that each witness should give evidence as to each overt act. It is sufficient that a number of witnesses are able to give evidence of “snipers,” which all taken together will amount to an overt act. Nature of Warning Where in practice, corroboration is required, the court must exercise extreme caution and must warn itself. The presence or absence of that warning is a determining factor. If there is corroboration but no warning, the prosecution must fail. If there is no corroboration but there is a warning, the prosecution succeeds all else being equal. There is no magic formula regarding the warning; and although it is required in practice, it has the force of law. The case of Davis v DPP (1954) gives you a guide as to the nature of warning. In the case, the House of Lords explained that the rule that where a person who was an accomplice gives evidence on behalf of the prosecution, it is the duty of the judge to warn the jury (or himself in the absence of the