EVIDENCE LAW
UNIT 9
BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof refers to the obligation placed on a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact. In Nigerian law, the burden of proof is governed by the Evidence Act 2011. The general rule is that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue (See section 131(1), Evidence Act 2011). This means that a plaintiff or claimant must prove the facts of their case. However, the burden of proof can shift between parties during a trial. Once a party has provided sufficient evidence to establish a fact, the burden may shift to the other party to disprove it (See section 133(1), Evidence Act 2011). Where the legal burden is the obligation to prove the elements of a case to the standard required by law the evidential burden is the obligation to produce evidence to support one's case. See the case of Onobruchere v. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.19) 799 where the Supreme Court held that the burden of proof in civil cases lies on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side and the case of Ukejianya v. Uchendu (1950) 13 WACA 45 where the court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party who alleges.
STANDARD OF PROOF
The standard of proof determines the level of certainty and the degree of evidence necessary to establish proof in a criminal or civil proceeding. In civil cases, the standard of proof is on a "balance of probabilities" (See section 134, Evidence Act 2011). This means that a fact is proved if it is more likely than not to have occurred while in criminal cases, the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" (See section 135, Evidence Act 2011). This means that the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt to such a degree that there is no reasonable doubt remaining. See the case of Nigerian Army v. Aminu-Kano (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 429 where the court held that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials and the case of Yusuf v. State (1976) 6 SC 167 where the Supreme Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence refers to any document that is presented in court for the purpose of establishing a fact in a case. This is governed by the Evidence Act 2011. For documentary evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant to the facts in issue (See section 4, Evidence Act 2011). The document must also be properly authenticated. Under documentary evidence, we have the primary evidence and secondary evidence, where the primary evidence is the document itself produced for inspection (See section 86, Evidence Act 2011) and the secondary evidence is the copies of the original document or oral accounts of the contents of a document (See section 89, Evidence Act 2011). We also have public and private documents, where public documents are those made by public officers in the discharge of their official duties. like the Certified true copies (CTC) are admissible as evidence (See section 102, Evidence Act 2011), the private documents are those made by individuals. Originals or properly authenticated copies must be produced. See the case of Esangbedo v. State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113) 57 where the court held that documentary evidence must be properly tendered and admitted in accordance with the law and the case of Anyaebosi v. R.T. Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 59) 84 where the court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence in proving contracts.
CONFESSIONS
A confession is an admission by a person accused of a crime, stating or suggesting that they committed the crime. The rules governing confessions are found in the Evidence Act 2011. A confession is admissible if it is made voluntarily (See section 29(2), Evidence Act 2011) and if obtained through oppression, inducement, threat, or promise, it becomes inadmissible. Confessions can be judicial which are made in court during proceedings, extra judicial which are made outside the court and often to law enforcement officers. Although a confession can be sufficient to convict, corroboration is often sought to support the confession. See the case of Ikpasa v. Bendel State (1981) 9 SC 7 where the Supreme Court held that for a confession to be admissible, it must be voluntary and the case of Kanu v. The King (1952) 14 WACA 30 where the court emphasized the need for corroboration of confessions.
JUDGE'S RULES
The Judge's Rules are guidelines for police officers on the conduct of interrogations and the taking of statements from suspects. Although not legally binding, they are influential in determining the admissibility of confessions. Key principles of the judges rule includes where a suspect should not be questioned without cautioning them and if a suspect wishes to make a statement, it should be taken down verbatim and also the suspect must be informed of their right to remain silent. See the case of R v. Voisin (1918) 1 KB 531 where the Judge's Rules were discussed, emphasizing the importance of fair treatment during interrogation and the case of R v. Mustapha Ali (1945) 11 WACA 45 where the court emphasized adherence to the Judge's Rules in obtaining confessions.
EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
The examination of witnesses is a fundamental part of the trial process. ee the case of Olujinle v. Adeagbo (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 75) 238 where the court discussed the importance of examination-in-chief in presenting evidence and the case of Ogundiyan v. State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 181) 519 where the Supreme Court emphasized the role of cross-examination in testing the credibility of witnesses. It includes examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination.
CONCLUSION
By following these guidelines and understanding the principles behind them, the legal practitioners can effectively navigate the complexities of presenting and challenging evidence in Nigerian courts.