IREGU V. STATE (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 189
ON WAYS OF PROVING CRIME
The onus is on the prosecution throughout to prove a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt as required by section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. In doing so, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the defendant in the following ways:
(a) by a confessional statement of the defendant;
(b) by the evidence of an eyewitness; or
(c) by circumstantial evidence.
(P. 248, paras. E–G)
MUSA V. STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 207
ON WAYS OF PROVING COMMISSION OF CRIME
An offence can be proved by:
(a) Confessional statements of the accused;
(b) Eye-witness evidence; or
(c) Circumstantial evidence.
In this case:
• Exhibits C & C1 (Hausa and English versions of the appellant’s confession) established culpability.
• PW4 and PW6 were eye-witnesses to the torture and ordeal.
• PW1 and PW5 provided circumstantial evidence on the recovery of the deceased’s corpse.
The appellant’s argument that others who survived the ordeal disproves causation was misconceived. The deceased, a 76-year-old man restrained, deprived of food and water, and forced to inhale smoke, would not survive. Eggshell skull rule applies: a defendant takes the victim as he is; survivorship of others does not exonerate culpability.
It was clear the appellant and others caused the death.
[Patrick v. State (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1645) 263; Emeka v. State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 734) 666; Ogba v. State (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 222) 146; Abirifon v. State (2013) NWLR (Pt. 1372) 587; Okere v. I.G.P. (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1770) 537 referred to.]
(Pp. 263–264, paras. C-B)
KEHINDE ISMAILA V. THE STATE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 153
ON WAYS OF PROVING COMMISSION OF CRIME
The guilt of an accused can be proved through confessional statements, circumstantial evidence, or direct/evidence of eyewitnesses. Any one or all of these forms of evidence can establish criminal liability. [State v. Ahmed (2020); Addo v. State (2021)] (P. 172, paras. D-E)
KEHINDE ISMAILA V. THE STATE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 153
ON WAYS OF PROVING THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME
The commission of a crime may be proved by direct evidence, by a confession of the accused, or by circumstantial evidence which irresistibly points to the guilt of the accused. (Adeyemo v. State (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1485) 311; Bille v. State (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1536) 363; Akwuobi v. State (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1550) 421; Alao v. State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1702) 501; Fekolomoh v. State (2021) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1773) 461; Ekpemegbere v. State (2024) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1928) 203) (Pp. 81–82, paras. B–E; paras. G–A)
IKENNA OBI. V. THE STATE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 69.
On Ways of proving commission of crime
There are three recognised methods or ways by which the commission of a crime can be proved in court and they are:(a) Direct evidence of an eyewitness or eyewitnesses.(b) Confession of the defendant.(c) Circumstantial evidence.
In the instant case, the appellant’s main grouse is that the victim of the alleged armed robbery who testified as PW1 did not give credible evidence establishing the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery. However, the Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of the trial court that the evidence of PW1 was credible and left no one in doubt that there was robbery on 2nd February 2009 and that the robbery was an armed robbery. [Adeyemo v. State (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1485) 311; Bille v. State (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1536) 363; Akwuobi v. State (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1550) 421; Alao v. State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1702) 501; Fekolomoh v. State (2021) 6
NWLR (Pt. 1773) 461; Ekpemegbere v. State (2024) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1928) 203 referred to.] (Pp. 81-82, paras. B-E; paras. G-A)
IBRAHIM JUJI V. STATE (2025) 8 NWLR (PT. 1993) 535
ON WAYS OF PROVING COMMISSION OF CRIME
To prove the charge against the accused person, the prosecution may rely on the direct evidence of person or persons who
(a)saw when the offence was committed; the confession of the accused which is
(b)duly proved and is direct, positive and unequivocal to the effect that the accused committed the offence; and/or
circumstantial evidence which points to no other conclusion than that the accused
(c)committed the offence charged.
One or a combination of the above ways may sufficiently establish the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. [Idiok v. State (2008) 13NWLR (Pt.1104) 225; Abifiron v. State (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt.1372) 619; Famuyiwa v. State (2018) 5NWLR (Pt. 1613) 515 referred to.] (Pp. 562-563, paras. G-B)
LAWAN V. F.R.N. (2024) 12 NWLR (PT. 1953) 501
ON MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF MENS REA AS INGREDIENT OF CRIME
Mens rea is a necessary ingredient of an offence. Mens rea is the criminal intent or guilty mind of the accused. Mens rea entails that there must be a meeting of the mind and the act of the offender for the offence to be complete. Given that there is no way humanly possible to ascertain with mathematical accuracy the devices of a man’s heart, the intentions can be discerned from the actions of the offender and other circumstantial evidence. In this case, the actions of the appellant showed his guilty intention. [Njoku v. State (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt.1339) 548 referred to.] (Pp. 549-550, paras. D-D).
EFFIOM V. STATE [2024]10 NWLR (1946) 313 (SC)
ON WAYS OF PROVING CRIME
The burden is primarily on the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused person. The burden can be discharged in three ways, namely:
(a) by confessional statement of the defendant; or
(b) by circumstantial evidence which must be cogent, positive and conclusive; or
(c) by evidence of eye-witnesses otherwise called direct evidence.
AUGUSTINE V. I.N.E.C. [2024]10 NWLR (1947) 409
ON HOW TO PROVE CRIME ALLEGED IN ELECTION PETITION
Where crime is alleged in an election petition, the petitioner must prove:
(a) That the respondent whose election is being challenged personally committed the corrupt acts or aided, abetted, consented to or procured the commission of the alleged corrupt practices.
(b) That where the alleged act was committed through an agent, that the agent was expressly authorized to act in that capacity or granted authority.
(c) That the corrupt practice substantially affected the outcome of the election and how it affected it.
OKERE V. I.G.P. (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 341
ON MODES OF PROVING COMMISSION OF CRIME
Where the commission of a crime is in issue, the prosecution may adduce evidence in proof of same in any or a combination of the following ways:
(a) by the confessional statement of the accused person which is direct, positive, unequivocal and voluntarily made, and discloses beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused has admitted to the commission of the offence charged;
(b) by circumstantial evidence which shows beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused person and no other person committed the offence;
(c) by the testimony or testimonies of eyewitness(es) who saw when the offence was committed.
BALA V. NIGERIAN ARMY (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1962) 447
ON WHETHER ALLEGATION OF CRIME GROUND FOR PERPETUAL DETENTION
An allegation of crime is not a ground for perpetual detention, no matter the gravity of the offence. Hence, people should not be kept in detention in perpetuity at the pleasure of the authority saddled with the responsibility to prosecute them when there is an allegation of crime. It is in the bid to prevent such situation that the Constitution has provided for time limit within which individuals who are alleged to have committed offences are to be tried before courts of competent jurisdiction. The Constitution provides for criminal trial to be commenced within a reasonable time and reasonable time to avoid abuse is also defined by the Constitution. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) is clear on what constitutes reasonable time within which a person can be tried. In the instant case, the proper order for the court to make was one discharging the appellant having been in prison long over the constitutionally allowed period for incarceration awaiting trial. (P. 477, paras. C-E.