Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard
of proof that must be met in any trial. It is the standard of proof used to convict defendants charged with crimes in a criminal justice system. It is a proof that makes you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt. That no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty as prescribed in section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events beyond reasonable doubt (section 135 (1) Nigerian Evidence Act 2011). This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a “reasonable person” that the defendant is guilty. In Ahmed v The State (1999) > NWLR (part 612) at 673 the Supreme Court held that it is a cardinal principle in criminal proceedings that the burden of proving a fact which if proved would lead to the conviction of the accused is on the prosecution, who should prove such fact beyond reasonable doubt. Note therefore, that this does not mean that no doubt exists as to the guilt of the accused. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person’s belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.
What then does the proof beyond reasonable doubt signify?
If the case of Edet Asuquo Bassey v State (SC 298/08). The accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court on a two count charge of Armed Robbery contrary to section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree No. 5 of 1984. At the trial court, the prosecution fielded four witnesses and tendered confessional statements. The trial judge found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, the Court of Appeal maintained that judgment of the trial court but commuted the death sentence to 21 years imprisonment. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the confessional statement ascribed to him was not direct and voluntary. He postulated that there was no corroborative evidence outside the confessional statement to verify its truth.
The Supreme Court was urged on behalf of the appellant to set aside the conviction and the 21 years jail term to which the Court of Appeal assigned the accused person/appellant.
The respondent observed that the confessional statement of the accused/appellant was tendered during the trial without objection, but only belatedly assayed to retract same on appeal. He submitted that the confessional statement being direct and positive required no corroboration. He said the testimony of the prosecution witness proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court held the submission of the respondent, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the court below:-
1. A confession is relevant if it proves beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of the crime for which the accused person is charged. See Igbinovia V State (1981) 2 sc p.5 proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean, proof beyond all doubt, it means the prosecution establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling evidence which is conclusive. It means a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not achieved by the prosecution calling several witnesses to testify, rather the court is only interested in the testimony of a quality witness. If the court convicts on the extra-judicial confessional statement of an accused person, proof beyond reasonable doubt would be achieved if the statement was made voluntarily and the accused person did not retract from his confessional statement when he gave evidence in court on oath.

Nkechi Bright Ewere