LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Duty of Accused to Explain Damning Circumstances
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In a criminal case the burden is always on the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Generally, there is no duty on the accused to prove his innocence. Circumstances may, however, arise where some explanation may be required from the accused person such as where apparently damning circumstances are established against the accused. ... The facts which were proved called for an explanation from the appellant. He was last seen with the deceased. After two months he took the police and the relatives of the deceased to a place he dumped her remains. It is only a matter of common sense that on the state of the facts and circumstances, the appellant should offer some explanation as to how Regina died. Regrettably beyond the admittedly untrue statements, none was forthcoming. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the court will be justified in inferring the existence of the requisite guilty intent.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Adeniji v. State (2001) NLC-2101999(SC) at pp. 14–15; Paras B–E.
"In a criminal case the burden is always on the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Generally, there is no duty on the accused to prove his innocence. Circumstances may, however, arise where some explanation may be required from the accused person such as where apparently damning circumstances are established against the accused. ... The facts which were proved called for an explanation from the appellant. He was last seen with the deceased. After two months he took the police and the relatives of the deceased to a place he dumped her remains. It is only a matter of common sense that on the state of the facts and circumstances, the appellant should offer some explanation as to how Regina died. Regrettably beyond the admittedly untrue statements, none was forthcoming. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the court will be justified in inferring the existence of the requisite guilty intent."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
While the prosecution bears the burden of proof throughout, damning circumstances may call for an explanation from the accused. Where the prosecution establishes facts that strongly point to guilt—e.g., accused last seen with deceased, later led police to remains—common sense requires an explanation. The accused’s failure to offer a satisfactory explanation allows the court to infer guilty intent. This is not a shift in the legal burden but an evidential one. The accused is not required to prove innocence, but where the facts demand explanation, silence may be fatal. The inference is one of fact based on human experience. The principle applies where the accused has peculiar knowledge of events.