Standard of Proof

It depends on the quality of the evidence tendered by the prosecution. Consequently, if the evidence is strong against an accused person as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence "of course it is possible but not in the least probable", the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Ukpong v. State LGC(11/1/2019) G

May I state clearly that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt or all shadow of doubt. It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence, a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. It is not proof to the hilt.

OLA v. STATE LGC(6/7/2018) K

May I state clearly that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt or all shadow of doubt. It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence, a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. It is not proof to the hilt.

OLA v. STATE LGC(6/7/2018) K

May I state clearly that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt or all shadow of doubt. It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence, a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. It is not proof to the hilt.

OLA v. STATE LGC(6/7/2018) K

At the Court below the Appellant's counsel submitted correctly on the authority of BOZIN v. THE STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 8) 465; THE STATE v SALAWU (2011) 8 NWLR (pt.1279) 580; BELLO v THE STATE (2007) 10 NWLR (pt.1043) 564, that the following facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for the charge of the offence of armed robbery to be sustained against the Appellant to warrant his conviction and sentence. That is
"i. there was robbery
ii. the robbery was an armed robbery: and
iii. the accused person took part in robbery."
The learned Appellant's counsel further submitted correctly that Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011 enjoins the prosecution (herein the respondent) to prove each of the 3 ingredients, aforestated, beyond reasonable doubts. See BAKARE v. THE STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (pt.52) 579; BANJO v. THE STATE (2013) 38 WRN 1: SHOFOLAHAN v. THE STATE (2013) 49 WRN 172.