LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Circumstantial Evidence – Standard Required
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is said to be evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with mathematical accuracy. It is no derogation to the evidence that it is a circumstantial evidence to support a conviction in a criminal prosecution must be cogent, complete, unequivocal and compelling, leading to the irresistible conclusion that the accused and no other person committed the offence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in Durwode v. State (2000) NLC-222000(SC) at p. 8; Paras B–D.
"It is said to be evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with mathematical accuracy. It is no derogation to the evidence that it is a circumstantial evidence to support a conviction in a criminal prosecution must be cogent, complete, unequivocal and compelling, leading to the irresistible conclusion that the accused and no other person committed the offence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Circumstantial evidence must meet a high threshold: cogent, complete, unequivocal, and compelling. The combined circumstances must lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused and no other person committed the offence. The evidence should prove the proposition with near-mathematical certainty. This standard recognizes that circumstantial evidence, while indirect, can be as powerful as direct evidence if the chain of circumstances excludes all reasonable doubt. Each link must be firmly established, and the chain must be unbroken, leaving no room for alternative hypotheses.