The proof of criminal allegation in election petitions: A critique of the traditional approach

One of the evidential issues in election petitions is the requirement that criminal allegations be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Ostensibly, the position of the Nigerian judiciary stems from the provisions of the Evidence Act, which relates to the standard of proof in civil or criminal cases. Using analytical research, with data sourced from a review of decided cases, the paper sought to interrogate the issues surrounding the application of the status quo - proof beyond a reasonable doubt to an election petition and the herculean evidential burden on a petitioner to prove. The paper critiques the traditional approach of applying the criminal standard of proof to election petitions and argues for a lower standard based on the preponderance of evidence to allow for judicious determination of election disputes filed at the election tribunals. In conclusion, the paper argued for re-evaluating the traditional approach to proving criminal allegations in election petitions. It advocated for reforms that enhance electoral justice, explicitly providing that the standard of proof applicable to an election petition is the preponderance of evidence.