STATE V. ARDO (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 303
ON WHAT IS JOINT TRIAL AND DUTY ON PROSECUTION THEREIN
When more than one accused persons are charged for the same offence and arraigned together, it is known as a joint trial.
The prosecution is duty bound to establish the ingredients of the offences charged against each accused person separately.
In other words, the prosecution must prove by credible evidence the part played by each accused person that constituted the offence jointly charged.
Thus, the fact that an accused is jointly charged with others for a crime, does not mean the evidence must also be joined.
The extent of the liability of each person, the extent of his or her intention and knowledge in the commission of the crime must be proved, otherwise, that accused must be acquitted.
(P. 324, paras. D-F)
IREGU V. STATE (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 189
ON WHEN BURDEN OF PROOF ON PROSECUTION IN CRIMINAL CASE DISCHARGED
The burden of proving the guilt of a defendant for an offence he was charged with beyond reasonable doubt is discharged when the prosecution proves by evidence the ingredients or elements of the offence charged.
[Kolawole v. State (2021) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1804) 177 referred to.]
(P. 248, paras. D–E)
MUSA V. STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 207
ON BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF OF CRIME
In criminal matters or cases, the burden of proving allegations of the commission of a crime or criminal offence against a person who is charged before a court of law is beyond reasonable doubt and is placed on the prosecution throughout the trial, save in recognized exceptions.
[Igabele v. State (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 100; Jua v. State (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 217; Jibrin v. F.R.N. (2020) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1714) 315; Orubo v. State (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1803) 549; Aiwuyor v. State (2022) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1846) 89; Berende v. F.R.N. (2023) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1875) 423 referred to.]
(P. 238, paras. D-F)
KEHINDE ISMAILA V. THE STATE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 153
ON BURDEN OF PROOF OF CRIME AND HOW IT IS DISCHARGED
In criminal cases, the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution under sections 135(1), 139(1), and 140 of the Evidence Act 2011. Only after the prosecution has discharged this burden can the accused adduce evidence in defense, e.g., alibi, self-defense, provocation, or sudden fight. [Lucky v. State (2024); Effiom v. State (2024); Adisa v. State (2023); Ojo v. F.R.N. (2023); Udo v. State (2023); Ekwenuya v. State (2024)] (P. 170, paras. D-H)
KEHINDE ISMAILA V. THE STATE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 153
ON MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof to the extent of legal and ethical certainty, satisfying the conscience of the judge as a reasonable person that the accused committed the offence. [Afolalu v. State (2010); Dairo v. State (2017)] (P. 171, paras. D-F)
KEHINDE ISMAILA V. THE STATE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 153
ON INGRIDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
To secure a conviction for the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a robbery, that the robbery was an armed robbery, and that the accused person was one of those who committed the robbery. Failure to establish any of these essential ingredients is fatal to the prosecution’s case. (Attah v. State (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 190; Igabele v. State (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 100; Mohammed v. State (2024) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1941) 385) (Pp. 83–84, paras. E–
D)IKENNA OBI. V. THE STATE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 69
On Burden and standard of proof in criminal cases
By virtue of section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011, the prosecution has a duty to prove a criminal allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, however, does not mean proof beyond any shadow of doubt. [Dibie v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1038) 30; Bakare v. State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 52) 579; Nwaturuocha v. State (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1242) 170; Wisdom v. State (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1586) 446 referred to.] (Pp. 80-81, paras. G-A)
IBRAHIM JUJI V. STATE (2025) 8 NWLR (PT. 1993) 535
ON PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
Every person accused of having committed an offence is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. This is an established principle of legality founded on the principle that it is the person who alleges that must prove. Therefore, the prosecution who alleges that a person has committed a particular offence has the burden of establishing that fact. (P. 561, paras. C-D)
IBRAHIM JUJI V. STATE (2025) 8 NWLR (PT. 1993) 535
ON ONUS AND STANDARD OF PROOF OF CRIME
By virtue of section 135(1) and of the Evidence Act, 2011, 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. The burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is, subject to section 139 of the Act, on the person who asserts it whether the commission of such act is or is not directly in issue in the action. (P. 561, paras.E-G)
IBRAHIM JUJI V. STATE (2025) 8 NWLR (PT. 1993) 535
ON MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean prove beyond every iota of doubt as doubts that are reasonable in the affairs of men often crop up in the judicial determination of whether the commission of a crime charged has been proved. Proof beyond reasonable doubt may mean establishing the guilt of an accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence, to a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. It means therefore, that where upon a reasoned and critical examination of the evidence adduced at the trial, all the essential elements of the offence have been proved, the burden cast on the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. [State v. Ahmed (2020) 14 NWLR (Pt.1743) 1; Dairo v.State (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt.1619) 399; Afolalu v. State(2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 584; Nwaturuocha v.State (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1242) 170; Hassan v. State (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt.1557) 1; Kolade v. State (2017)8 NWLR (Pt.1566) 60; Akindipo v. State (2012) 16NWLR (Pt.1325) 94 referred to.] (Pp. 561-562,paras. G-A; 562, paras. C-E)