The burden to prove or establish a case or claim in court is the obligation of the party seeking to make such claim. However, the extent the party on whom the burden rests would need to go to prove his case and satisfy the court that his claim has been sufficiently established is what the term, “Standard of proof” seeks to answer. 

Standard of proof refers to the level of certainty or satisfaction required to establish one’s claim. The concept is such that it determines the fate of a Defendant. The standard of proof to be employed by a court depends on the nature of the matter.

Types of Standards of Proof

The standard employed by courts depends on whether it is a civil or a criminal matter. There are two standards of proof in Nigeria, which include:

Balance of Probabilities

This standard of proof is used in civil matters. This means that the party adducing evidence is proving that an alleged case or fact is likely not to be true. In civil cases, the burden of proof initially lies on the Claimant making the claim and then shifts to the Defendant. 

In Agu v Nnaji, the Supreme Court held that in law, a plaintiff must show by evidence, a prima facie case before the defendant to adduces his evidence. In essence, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case then the defendant adduces evidence in his defense. The court then decides on the matter on the balance of probabilities. 

There are instances where the burden of proof falls on the defendant to call evidence first especially where statutory presumptions are involved. No matter which party adduces evidence first, the matter will be decided based on the evidence before the Court on the balance of probabilities. 

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The standard of proof, “beyond reasonable doubt” is the standard employed to decide criminal matters. It is such that requires the party establishing his case to prove it to the extent that it will be clear beyond reasonable doubt to a reasonable person that the defendant did in fact commit the alleged crime.

In the State vs. Onyeukwu his Lordship, Pats-Acholonu JSC held;

It must be stated and emphasized that proof beyond all reasonable doubt does not mean or import or connote beyond any degree of certainty. The term strictly means that within bounds of evidence adduced and starting the court in the face no tribunal of justice worth its salt would convict on it having regard to the nature of the evidence led and marshaled out in the case. It can be said that evidence in criminal trial that is susceptible to doubt cannot be said to have attained the height standard of proof that can be said beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of what one might think in a given state of affairs in a given case, neither suspicion nor speculation or intuition can be a substitute for a proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is proof that precludes all reasonable inference or assumption except that which it seeks to support and must have the clarity of proof that is readily consistent with the guilt of the person. The expression beyond reasonable doubt should not be susceptible to any ungainly and abstract construction or understanding. A priori, it is a concept founded on reason and rational and critical examination of a state of facts and law rather than fanciful, whimsical or capricious and speculative doubt.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF STANDARD OF PROOF IN NIGERIA

Statutes

The standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” in Nigeria originated from English common law, which was propounded in the case of Woolmington v. DPP and established later in Nigerian law through the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Evidence Act 2011.  

By virtue of Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the standard of proof came into force in Nigeria based on the principle which guarantees that every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption places the burden on the prosecution to prove the guilt of a Defendant, mandating the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The standard of proof is also codified in Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 (formerly Section 138 of the 1990 Act) which explicitly states that if the commission of a crime is directly in issue in any proceeding, civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It also set the standard for civil cases which is on the balance of probability by weighing the evidence adduced by the parties before the Court.

Judicial Precedents

Nigerian superior courts have consistently applied and upheld the standards of proof in numerous cases, establishing a robust corpus of judicial precedents. Cases such as Bakare v. State (1987), Igabele v. State (2006), and Abeke v. State emphasize that the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused in criminal matters. In Aiguoreghian & Anor v. State, the Supreme Court emphasized the requirement to prove every element of an offense beyond reasonable doubt.

The case of Mogaji v. Odofin, in which the Supreme Court provided a guideline for judges to weigh the totality of evidence on an imaginary scale to determine which side is more probable. The case of Central Bank of Nigeria v. Ochife & Ors, affirmed that civil cases are proven by the preponderance of evidence and the party with the burden fails if evidence is equally balanced. It was held in Kate Enterprises Ltd v. Daewoo Nigeria Ltd that if a Claimant discharges their burden and the defendant offers no evidence, the Claimant’s evidence is deemed more probable. 

THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN NIGERIA

The rationale behind the standard of proof, “beyond reasonable doubt” is the fundamental principle that it is better for several guilty persons to escape conviction than for an innocent person to be convicted and suffer punishment which often involves the deprivation of liberty or life itself. It serves as a cornerstone of justice, protecting the presumption of innocence and preventing wrongful convictions.

The Supreme Court held in the case of Ogu v COP: 

‘However, for an accused person entitled to be the benefit of doubt, the doubt must be genuine and reasonable one arising from some evidence before the court’. 

IMPACT OF THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN NIGERIA

The impact of the standard of proof on judicial matters in Nigeria include:

Protection of the Defendants in Criminal Matters

The high standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” protects innocent individuals from wrongful conviction preventing the gravity of criminal convictions like the punishment which involves the deprivation of liberty and the potential loss of life.

Fairness in Civil Matters

The “balance of probabilities” standard ensures that decisions are made based on an even consideration of evidence adduced by the parties to a suit determining the most probable version of events and ensuring equity in disputes regarding money or property.

Upholding Constitutional Rights

Standard of proof upholds and enforces the Constitutional rights of a person entrenched in the Section 33 to 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended) and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 (FREP Rules). 

Judicial Integrity & Transparency

It guides judges in the evaluation of evidence and compels judicial decisions to be predicated on facts and evidence, not intuition.

Procedural Roadmap 

Establishes clear burdens for parties and states when the burden of proof shifts guiding trial dynamics and prevents the miscarriage of justice.

In essence, Nigeria’s standards of proof are fundamental pillars ensuring that justice is delivered timely, factually, fairly and in accordance with the appropriate procedures for each case.