THE STATE v. AMOS RUFUS

“Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which codifies the fundamental right to fair hearing provides that: “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty”. The foregoing is known as the presumption of innocence which innures to every person accused of a crime. This presumption stands strong and if at the end of the trial, the Prosecution fails to rebut the Constitutional provision, even without the Accused making a single statement, the Accused will be discharged and acquitted. In order to rebut the presumption of innocence, the Prosecution in any criminal matter must prove the commission of the crime as charged beyond reasonable doubt. To this end, Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides thus: “135. (1) 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. (2) The burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is, subject to section 139 of this Act, on the person who asserts it, whether the commission of such act is or is not directly in issue in the action. (3) If the prosecution proves the commission of a crime beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proving reasonable doubt is shifted on to the defendant. The Supreme Court in the case of State vs. Ajayi (2016) LPELR-40663 (SC), per Okoro, JSC at page 50, restated this trite position of the law thus: “It is trite that in criminal proceedings, the onus is always on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution will readily achieve this result by ensuring that all the necessary and vital ingredients of the charge or charges are proved by evidence. See; Yongo vs. COP (1992) 4 SCNJ 113, (1992) LPELR – 3528 (SC); Uche Williams vs. The State (1992)10 SCNJ 74. It must be noted that under our system of criminal justice, accused person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty and the burden of proof is always on the Prosecution. See Okputuobiode & Ors vs. The State (1970) ALL NLR 36, (1970) LPELR –2524 (SC).” See: Nnajiofor v. People Of Lagos State (2015) LPELR 24666(CA); Tometim v. STATE (2014) LPELR-22788(CA); and Abbey v. State (2017) LPELR-42358(SC).

“The law has been settled for a long time that circumstantial evidence can often be the best evidence and may be relied upon to ground any conviction in the proper circumstances. The Supreme Court in the case of Aigbadion Vs. The State (2000) 1 NWLR 686 reiterated this settled principle by quoting with approval, the dictum of Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewartin the English case of R v. Taylor &Ors (1928) 21 CAR 20 @ 21, thus: “It has been said that the evidence against the applicants is circumstantial: so it is, but circumstantial evidence is veryoften the best. It is evidence of surrounding circumstanceswhich, by undersigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial.” The Apex Court in the case of Abokokuyanro V. S (SC.159/2012) [2016] NGSC 128, per Clara Ogunbiyi JSC, clearly stated the condition for reliance on circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction thus “The law is trite and well settled that for circumstantial evidence to ground a conviction, it must lead only to one and only one conclusion, namely, the guilt of the accusedperson. However, and where there appear to be other probabilities in the case that could give a possible likelihood that another person other than the accused, was likely to have committed the offence, i.e to say suggesting that another person different from the accused had the opportunity of committing the offence with which the accused was charged, the conviction of the accused for murder cannot be sustained. In other words, in order for the prosecution to succeed in proof of an offence based on circumstantial evidence, it must be found to be positive, compelling and also with scientific precision, point to the guilt of the accused person.” See: Kingsley Omoregie Vs. The State (SC. 334/2012) [2017] NGSC 20.”

“The law is trite beyond the need for citing of authorities that mere suspicion no matter how strong can never be the basis for conviction.”