the accused. R. v. Baskerville (1916) 2 K.B. 658; and Jatau v. Danladi (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.415) 592/614 - 615 per Orah JCA." Per MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.C.A (Pp. 16-17, paras. D-C) (...read in context) 9. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - SECTION 179 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT CAP 112: Statutory interpretation of S. 179 of the Evidence Act Cap 112 "S. 179 of the Evidence Act Cap 112 provides:- "(1) Except as provided in this Section, no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. (2)(a) No person charged with treason or with any of the following mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Criminal Code can be convicted, except on his own plea of guilty, or on the evidence in open court of two witnesses at the least to one overt act of the kind of treason' or felony alleged, or the evidence of one witness, to one overt act and one other witness to another overt act of he same kind of treason or felony. (b) This Subsection does not apply to cases in which the overt act of treason alleged is the killing of the president, or in a direct attempt to endanger the life or injure the person of the president. (3) A person shall not be convicted of committing perjury, or of counselling or procuring the commission of perjury, upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness, contradicting the oath on which perjury is assigned, unless circumstances are proved which corroborate such witness. (4) A person charged under the Road Traffic Law of a State with driving at a speed greater than the allowed maximum shall not be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness that in his opinion he was driving at such speed. (5) A person shall not be convicted of the offences mentioned in paragraph (b) of Subsection (1 of Section