Burden Of Proof

The burden of proof is a legal requirement that determines the viability of a claim based on the factual evidence produced. It is also an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the claim. The legal burden to proof beyond reasonable doubt continues to rest on the prosecution in the Nigerian criminal justice jurisprudence. An accused person is not required to open the case and to lead evidence to show or to prove his innocence. Under the Nigerian law, he who asserts in the affirmative and would fail if no evidence is called has the burden under Section 136 of the Evidence Act to prove the assertion.
In criminal cases, the burden is entirely on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant. This burden does not shift if the respondent must secure conviction. This is because, there is the presumption of innocence in favour of the defendant as he has no obligation in law to prove his innocence. The duty is squarely on the shoulder of the respondent to prove all the ingredients of the offence to secure conviction. In Ankpegher V. State (2018) LPELR 43906 (sc), the apex court per Kekere – Ekun, JSC at Pages 24 – 25 held:
“There is no doubt that in criminal proceedings the onus of proof lies on the prosecution throughout the trial and does not shift. There is no burden on the accused person to prove his innocence. It is also trite that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is proof beyond reasonable doubt but not proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, see Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011; Ikpo V. the State (2016) 2–3 sc (Pt 111) 88; Oseni V. The State (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt 1293) 351 @ 388 F-G; Woolmington V. DPP (1935) AC 462.”
It is worthy of note that while the burden to prove the guilt of the defendant does not shift, there are instances in a criminal trial when the burden to prove shifts. This is when the defendant makes assertion over a fact in a criminal matter. The burden is on him to prove that fact. This is because the law is trite and it is that, whoever alleges a fact is under obligation in law to prove the fact he alleges. In Omorede Darlington V. FRN ELC (2018) 2415 Page 1, the apex court held:
“There is no doubt and it is trite as well, that the appellant has the burden of establishing his assertions. He has a duty of establishing his assertion. He has a duty to establish the assertions made in the complaints either in his grounds of appeal or the issues formulated from the grounds of appeal for the determination of his appeal. Section 131(1) of the evidence Act 2011 is quite categorical on this; whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existent of facts which he asserts must prove that these facts exist.” PER E. TOBI JCA.
In civil cases, the rule is that the burden of proof rests on the party (whether plaintiff or defendant), who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue when it is said that the onus of proof shifts from plaintiff to defendant and vice versa from time to time as the case progresses, it means no more than the burden of proof may shift depending on how the scale of evidence preponderates. However, subject to the scale of evidence preponderating, the burden of proof rests squarely on the party, who would fail if no evidence at all. From the Supreme Court Judgement of Iroagbara V. Ufomadu (2019) LPELR 1538 (sc) Per Aderemi JSC (pp 13-14, Para E-B), it is clear that the legal burden of proof generally in civil cases is on the plaintiff, who is expected to discharge same on the balance of probabilities, when it is the defendant that affirmatively asserts the existence of a fact, the burden of proving that fact will equally lie on him.

By: Nkechi Bright-Ewere