Standard of proof is the level of certainty and the degree of evidence necessary to establish proof in a criminal or civil proceedings. There are three basic forms of standard of proof; preponderance of the evidence, this is used for most civil actions, clear and convincing proof is a more demanding standard of proof, and it is used in certain civil actions, such as a civil fraud suit. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the most demanding standard of proof, it’s the one that must be met for a criminal conviction.

The law on the standard of proof in the prosecution is provided for by the provision of section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. This provision of the law states thus, “ 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.” Also the standard of proof in the defendant is provided for by section137 of the Evidence Act 2011. This standard, whether in civil or criminal, trial, is the proof on balance of probabilities. The provision of the law states thus, “where in any criminal proceeding the burden of proving the existence of any fact or matter has been placed upon a defendant by virtue of the provisions of any law, the burden shall be discharged on the balance of probabilities.”

It is a trite position of the law that to secure conviction, the prosecution must not only connect the Defendant to the offence but in doing so the standard of proof required is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. This simply means that the Respondent must prove all the ingredients of the offence for which the Defendant is charged with. The standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The law is, where there is any doubt in course of proving any ingredient of the offence, the doubt will be resolved in favour of the Defendant, as that would mean that the Respondent has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. See Jimoh  V.  State (2018) LPELR-44074 (CA).

The supreme court in Ikaria V.  State (2014) 1NWLR (pt1389) 639 per Ogunbiyi JSC held thus : “By the use of the phrase “proof beyond reasonable doubt”, it presupposes that all ingredients establishing the offence must be proved to such a degree that there would be no question or stone left unturned as to the certainty that it is the Accused/Appellant and none other that must have committed the act complained of. In other words, all fingers will irritably point towards the direction of the Accused. The culpability of the Appellant should not be in any shadow of doubt but a clear focus of attention for such proof to sustain, it must earn the credibility of witnesses’ testimonies,who must give a firsthand account of facts which are within their personal knowledge.  Any other source of information would be rated hearsay evidence and therefore not admissible.

In Olonade v. Swemimo, Mohammed JSC explained the meaning of standard of proof in civil cases, the balance of probabilities, “My Lords in civil matters such as this, the Court decides the case on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence. The trial court does this by first deciding which evidence it accepts from each of the parties, putting the accepted evidence adduced by the plaintiff on one side of the imaginary scale and that of the Defendant on the other side of the scale and weighing them together. The court then decides which side evidence is heavier, not by the number of witnesses called by either party or on the basis of one being oral and the other being documentary but by the quality or probative value of the evidence, be it oral or documentary.”

However, the standard of proof on the Defendant seeking to prove the defence of alibi or insanity is not on the balance of probabilities but on evidential burden to establish the reasonable probable existence of the facts. Section137 of the Evidence Act represents the current position of the law on this matter.

By: Nkechi Bright-Ewere