Introduction
In criminal cases, the burden of proof in criminal cases in Nigeria is a pivotal concept that shapes the entire judicial process. It is foundational to the administration of justice, both in civil and criminal cases, as it delineates the responsibilities of parties in presenting evidence and substantiating their claims or defenses. Under Nigerian law, the burden of proof is governed by principles outlined in the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended), and is crucial in ensuring that justice is served fairly and justly.
What is Burden of Proof?
The term “Burden of Proof” when used in law is used in two different senses. First, it refers to the obligation to establish a case, requiring a party to persuade the court either by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond reasonable doubt that the material facts constituting their case are true. This responsibility, known as the general burden or the “ Burden on the Pleading”, is central to obtaining a favourable judgment.
Second, the term refers to the obligation to adduce evidence on a particular fact or issue. In some cases, this evidence must be sufficient to prove the fact or issue, while in others, it merely needs to justify a finding in favour of the party bearing the burden. This is known as the evidential burden, which is the more commonly understood use of the term.
Who Bears the Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases?
In criminal cases, the burden of proof in criminal cases in Nigeria generally rests on the prosecution to prove the commission of a crime or wrongful act. This is because, under the adversarial justice system practiced in Nigeria, an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, except where a law specifically imposes a burden on the accused to prove a particular fact.
Section 135 (2) of the Evidence Act provides that “The burden of proving that any person is guilty of a crime or wrongful act is, subject to the provisions of Section 139 of this Act, on the person who asserts it, whether the commission of such act is or is not directly in issue in action.” This section embodies the fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” placing the onus on the accuser to substantiate their claims with sufficient evidence. It underscores the importance of evidence in establishing culpability and highlights the need for a rigorous legal process to ensure justice.
This presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal law and plays a vital role in Nigerian criminal procedure, ensuring that innocent individuals are not wrongfully convicted.
General principle on the Standard of Proof
In every criminal trial, the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is the highest standard of proof, requiring that the prosecution’s evidence be so convincing that there is no reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt. This stringent standard protects individuals from wrongful conviction and ensures that only those proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are punished.
Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act states that “If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt”. This provision underscores the gravity and seriousness of criminal allegations, necessitating a high level of certainty before a person can be convicted. The phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” means there should be no reasonable uncertainty or hesitation in the fact-finder’s mind regarding the guilt of the accused.
Additionally, in Omoregie V. State (2017) LPELR-42466(SC), the Supreme court held that “The Law is settled that in criminal cases, the burden of proof that the accused committed the offence for which he is charged lies squarely on the prosecution, who must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and a general duty to rebut the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to the accused person. This burden never shifts.”
From the foregoing, it is clear that the burden of proof in criminal cases in Nigeria requires the prosecution to prove all elements of the offense necessary to establish the guilt of the accused or defendant in any criminal matter. For instance, in a murder case, the prosecution is required to demonstrate that the accused caused the victim’s death with the intention to kill or inflict serious bodily harm. This responsibility remains with the prosecution throughout the trial.
Shifting the Burden of Proof to the Accused
Although the primary burden of proof in criminal cases in Nigeria lies with the prosecution, if the prosecution satisfies this legal burden and the accused person does nothing to deny the charge, the accused may be convicted. Thus, the accused has a burden of raising an issue in denial of the prosecution’s case. Additionally, an accused person may be required to prove a fact to defend themselves in a criminal matter. For instance, if an accused claims they acted in self-defense, they must prove that the defense applies to their case. Similarly, if there is a legal presumption that certain documents are genuine, the burden may fall on the accused to prove that the documents are not genuine if they dispute their authenticity.
Section 139 of the Nigerian Evidence Act provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Thus, it follows that it is incumbent on the accused to adduce sufficient evidence to raise a particular defense. They satisfy this burden if they present material that could induce a reasonable doubt as to the availability of that defense.
In Alhaji Lasisi Apamadari and Anor V. The State (1996) LPELR 21461 (CA), it was held that where an accused person seeks to rely on a particular defense provided by law, it is their duty to establish by evidence the set of facts constituting that defense. For instance, if the defense to a charge of dangerous driving is that the accused’s vehicle had a mechanical defect, the burden of establishing that defense rests on the accused due to their unique access to the relevant information. The shifting of the evidential burden allows the judge to consider the accused’s silence or the absence of a satisfactory explanation from their evidence. Therefore, if the accused provides evidence consistent with their innocence that could be reasonably true, they are entitled to an acquittal, even if the judge is not fully convinced.
Additionally, in the case of Osarodion Okoro v. State (1988) LLJR- SC, the Supreme Court, while discharging and acquitting the appellant, criticized the trial judge’s decision to require the accused to present their defense, which led to the appellant being incriminated by evidence given by the co-accused persons. The Court declared such evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional provision of the presumption of innocence void and of no effect.
Conclusion
The concept of burden of proof in criminal cases in Nigeria is a critical element of the legal process, ensuring that parties to a case have clear responsibilities regarding the presentation and substantiation of evidence. The provisions of the Nigerian Evidence Act concerning the burden of proof play a pivotal role in ensuring fairness, equity, and transparency in the administration of justice. By delineating the responsibilities of parties in presenting evidence and substantiating their claims or defenses, these provisions establish a procedural roadmap that guides legal proceedings in both civil and criminal cases. Understanding these principles is crucial for legal practitioners and individuals involved in legal disputes as they navigate the complexities of Nigerian judicial system.
References
- The Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended).
- Azubuike, The Law of Evidence in Nigeria (Princeton Associates, 2022) 389.
- Ani Comfort Chinyere (Mrs.), “Emerging Trends on the Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Silence in Nigeria”. https://legalpediaonline.com/emerging-trends-on-the-presumption-of-innocence-and-the-right-to-silence-in-nigeria/#:~:text=Nigeria%20has%20embedded%20these%20principles%20in%20her%20Constitution,criminal%20trial%2C%20the%20prosecution%20bears%20the%20persuasive%20burden.
- Frederick Nkobowo, “Cases and Principles on Criminal Trials in Nigeria”. Cases and Principles on Criminal Trials in Nigeria – LAWgically Speaking (ls-ng.com)
- https://studylib.net/doc/8933161/alhaji-lasisi-apamadari-and-anor-v.-the-state
- https://www.lawglobalhub.com/osarodion-okoro-v-the-state-1988-lljr-sc/#gsc.tab=0
