burden & standard of proof

Generally, the burden of proof in any criminal charge against an accused person rests on the prosecution, but there are special circumstances when this burden shifts from the prosecution to the accused person thereby serving as exceptions to the general principle. Where the accused person asserts a thing as fact that is within his knowledge, the accused person must be required to proof that fact, not the prosecution. For instance, where an accused person is pleading insanity, or insane delusion, or intoxication as a defence, the burden of proof will shift from the prosecution to the accused person. See Sections 27, 28 and 29 of the Criminal Code Act, Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999; Sections 139(3)(c) and 40 of the Evidence Act. JOHN V. STATE (2013) All FWLR (Pt.666) p. 505 at p.520, paras. F-E; ONAKPOYA V. R. (1959) 4 FSC 150; (1959) SCNLR 384; R. V. ECHEM 14 WACA 158; SODEMAN V. R (1936) 2 All ER 1138; MOHAMMED V. STATE (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 383) 46. ALIYU V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; OKON V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR

The onus of proving any charge against an accused person/defendant is on the prosecution and never shifts even where there is a confessional statement made by the accused person/defendant admitting the commission of the offence charged. The accused person’s confession only makes the task easier for the prosecution but never takes it away completely. Edokun v. The State (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 875) 2125 at p. 2172 paras. A-B; Lori v. State (1980) 8 – 11 SC 81; Dowe v. F.R.N. (2011) LPELR 9217; John v. State (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 666) 505; Aigbadion v. State (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 666) 686. ABDULLAHI V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR; ABUBARKAR V. STATE (2018) HELAR

The duty or burden of proving the guilt of an accused person lies on the prosecution, and generally speaking, it remains static and never shifts to the defence. To discharge this burden the prosecution will have to ensure that all the necessary and vital ingredients of the offence are proved by credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, before any conviction can be pronounced and sustained. Edokun v. The State (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 875) 2125 at p. 2172 paras. A-B; Akinrilola v. State (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 877) p.208; Adeyeye v. State (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 704) p.108; Zakari v. Nigerian Army (1013) All FWLR (Pt.658) p.999; Egwumi v. State (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 678) p.824; Yongo v. C.O.P. (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 257) 36; Babuga v. State (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 460) 279. OGU V. C.O.P (2017) HELAR; ESSEYIN V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR

Whenever the burden of proof shifts to an accused person, the standard required from the accused person is not that of beyond reasonable doubt (as is required of the prosecution) but the standard required in civil procedure, which is on the BALANCE OF PROBABILITY. Therefore, the burden of such proof is not as heavy on the defence as that required from the prosecution. John v. State (2013) All FWLR (Pt.666) p. 505 at p.520, paras. F-E; Onakpoya v. R. (1959) 4 FSC 150; (1959) SCNLR 384; R. V. Echem 14 WACA 158; Sodeman v. R (1936) 2 All ER 1138; Mohammed v. State (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 383) 46. ALIYU V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; OKON V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR

The standard of proof required of the prosecution in a criminal charge trial is the one of completeness - it must prove the case by establishing the existence of the vital ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Edokun v. The State (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 875) 2125 at p. 2172 paras. A-B; Ogundiyan v. State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 181) 519; Onuoha v. State (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 23; State v. Emine (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 256) 658; Ikhane v. C.O.P. (1977) All NLR 234; Zakari v. Nigerian Army (2013) All FWLR (Pt.658) p.999. OGU V. C.O.P (2017) HELAR; ADEROUNMU V. FRN (2019) HELAR

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not necessarily mean proof beyond every iota or shadow of doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is achieved when evidence against the accused person is strong and compelling, leaving only a remote possibility in the accused person’s favour, which can be dismissed with the aphorism of “of course, it is possible, but not in the least probable” that the accused person committed the offence. Babarinde v. State (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 662) p.1731 at p.1777, paras. F-G. ADEROUNMU V. FRN (2019) HELAR

Where there is doubt in the proof of a criminal charge, it must be resolved in favour of the accused person. He will be let off the hook of that charge. That is, discharged (depending on the circumstances of the case) and acquitted. Edokun v. The State (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 875) 2125 at P. 2172 paras. A-B; Ogundiyan v. State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 181) 519; Onuoha v. State (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 23; State v. Emine (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 256) 658; Ikhane v. C.O.P. (1977) All NLR 234. ADEROUNMU V. FRN (2019) HELAR