The above rule is one of practice. It is part of Uganda’s colonial legacy from Britain and our courts have been applying it religiously. (See Chila v Republic (1967) E. A. 722; and Boona Peter v Uganda (CA) Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1997.) The rationale behind the above rule is that women are liars especially in matters involving sexual allegations. The case of Neville and 5 others Cr, APP. R. 150 fully illustrates that point. In that case the judge, inter alia, commented as follows. “On a charge of a sexual offence against a woman or girl, the judge should direct the jury in clear and simple language that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant, because human experience in the courts had shown that women and girls, for all sorts of reasons and sometimes for no reason at all, tell a false story which is very easy to fabricate but extremely difficult to refute,,.” Therefore, to safeguard men against unwarranted prosecutions or false accusations in respect of sexual offences courts have always insisted upon the above rule of practice before convictions can be had. Be that as it may, Court has not come across any empirical data or basis for the belief that woman are greater liars than men or, for that matter that they are much more likely to lie than to say the truth in matters concerning sexual allegations. For that reason it seems that both the belief and the resultant rule have no logical basis. Therefore, the question Court wishes to raise here, is whether the said rule is legally justifiable? Court proposes to answer that question in the negative. It will base its stand on the premises below. Firstly, Court is of the opinion that the said rule is in conflict with section 132 of the Evidence Act (Cap.43) which provides as follows, “Subject to the provisions of any other law in force, no particular number of witnesses shall in any case he required for the proof of any fact.” In essence, the above provision lays down a general rule and an exception. In simple terms, the general rule is that the evidence of one witness is enough to prove any fact in any case. The exception to the rule is that where “any other law in force” provides so, the evidence of more than one witness may be required, in any ease, to prove an’ fact. In Court’s opinion the exception to the general rule in section 132 of the Evidence Act only covers ‘any other law in force”