LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Defences – Access by Others – Onus on Accused to Rebut Presumption
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where, as in the present case, the evidence conclusively points at the accused as the perpetrator of the crime for which he is charged, and the evidence is duly tested, scrutinized and accepted by the court, the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt or to cast a reasonable doubt on the case of the prosecution by preponderance of probabilities.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Akinmoju v. State (2000) NLC-11999(SC) at p. 18; Paras D–E.
"Where, as in the present case, the evidence conclusively points at the accused as the perpetrator of the crime for which he is charged, and the evidence is duly tested, scrutinized and accepted by the court, the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt or to cast a reasonable doubt on the case of the prosecution by preponderance of probabilities."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Where prosecution evidence conclusively points to the accused, tested and accepted, the evidential burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt or cast reasonable doubt. This is not a legal burden—the prosecution retains the ultimate burden—but a tactical burden to explain evidence pointing to guilt. The accused may show access by others or raise alternative hypotheses. However, mere speculation about others’ involvement without evidence does not suffice. The accused must provide some evidentiary foundation for alternative inferences.