LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Burden of Proof — Suspicion Insufficient for Conviction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Suspicion, however strong, does not amount to proof; to establish a charge of murder or manslaughter, it must be proved not merely that the accused's act could have caused death, but that it did.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, citing R. v. Oledinma 6 WACA 202 and Onyenankeya v. The State (1964) 1 NMLR 34, in Ahmed v. State (2001) NLC-271999(SC) at p. 12; Paras A–C.
"It is now trite that suspicion, however strong, will not amount to proof. To establish a charge of murder or manslaughter it must be proved not merely that the act of the accused person could have caused the death of the deceased, but that it did."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Suspicion, no matter how strong, is not proof. The prosecution must prove causation beyond reasonable doubt. It is insufficient to show that the accused’s act could have caused death; the prosecution must prove that it did cause death. The principle protects against conviction based on speculation or possibility. The court must be satisfied that the causal link is established. The rule applies to all criminal cases, especially homicide. The prosecution must eliminate reasonable doubt about causation. The principle is fundamental to the criminal justice system. The court will not convict on mere suspicion, even if the accused’s conduct is suspicious. The standard is proof, not suspicion.