No Case Submission and Resting the Defence on the Prosecution’s Case in Nigerian Criminal Trials: Distinctions, procedural implications, and strategic considerations for the defence

By Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN

Criminal trials in Nigeria are governed by procedural safeguards designed to ensure fairness, protect the rights of the accused, and prevent wrongful convictions.^[1] Central to these safeguards is the fundamental principle that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests entirely on the prosecution and must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt.^[2] This principle, firmly rooted in criminal jurisprudence, ensures that an accused person is presumed innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise with credible, legally admissible evidence.^[3]

The Supreme Court in Altine v State^[4] held that section 36(5) of the Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence to which an accused is entitled until proven guilty.^[5]

At the close of the prosecution’s case, the law affords the accused certain procedural options that may significantly influence the course and outcome of the trial.^[6] Two principal options available to the defence at this stage are a submission of no case to answer and the decision to rest the defence on the prosecution’s case.^[7] Although these options are often mentioned together in criminal proceedings, they are conceptually distinct and carry different legal consequences.

A submission of no case to answer is a formal application by the defence contending that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused sufficient to require the accused to enter a defence.^[8] Where such a submission succeeds, the court must discharge the accused without calling upon them to open a defence. The doctrine serves as an important procedural safeguard, preventing an accused from being compelled to defend a charge unsupported by credible evidence.^[9]

By contrast, resting the defence on the prosecution’s case arises where the accused elects not to call evidence after the prosecution has closed its case.^[10] Rather than challenging the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence through a formal submission, the defence relies entirely on the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or gaps in that case to argue that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.^[11] In such circumstances, the court evaluates the totality of the evidence before it to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Although both options arise at the same stage of the trial, they differ significantly in their legal foundations, procedural implications, and strategic consequences. A successful submission of no case to answer terminates the trial at that stage, whereas resting the defence on the prosecution’s case leaves the court to evaluate the prosecution’s evidence on its merits without further evidential input from the defence.^[12]

In practice, the decision whether to raise a submission of no case to answer or to rest the defence on the prosecution’s case requires careful strategic consideration by defence counsel. Factors such as the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, the availability of defence witnesses, the risk of exposing the accused to cross-examination, and the overall trial strategy may influence this choice.

This article examines two key procedural options available to an accused at the close of the prosecution’s case in a criminal trial. It analyses the legal principles governing a submission of no case to answer, the circumstances in which it may be successfully raised, and the judicial tests applied by courts in determining such applications. It further contrasts this with situations in which the accused elects to rest the defence on the prosecution’s case, thereby relying solely on perceived weaknesses or inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. Particular attention is given to the procedural distinctions, evidential implications, and strategic considerations that inform the defence’s choice between these approaches. Intended for criminal law practitioners, law students, and judicial officers, the article provides practical guidance on the effective use of these procedural mechanisms in Nigerian criminal trials.

Meaning and Legal Basis of Submission of no Case to Answer

A submission of no case to answer means that there is nothing in the evidence adduced by the prosecution upon which the court can compel the defendant to enter a defence.^[13] The Apex Court in the case of C.O.P v AMUTA^[14]held that it is settled law that a submission of no case to answer by an accused means that there is no evidence upon which, even if believed, the court could convict.^[15]

In other words, such a submission will succeed where there is no evidence to prove an essential element of the offence, or where the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited under cross-examination, or is so manifestly unreliable, that no reasonable court or Tribunal could safely convict on it. At the stage at which a submission of no case to answer is made, the trial Court is not required to express any opinion on the evidence before it, and the credibility of witnesses is not in issue. The court is only required to determine whether there is any legally admissible evidence linking the accused to the commission of the offence charged. Where the submission is based on discredited evidence, the discredit must be apparent on the face of the record; otherwise, the submission will fail.^[16]

Judicial Tests for Upholding a Submission of no Case to Answer

Over time, Nigerian courts have developed clear principles guiding the determination of a submission of no case to answer. The leading authority is the Supreme Court decision in Daboh v The State,^[17]where the court articulated the applicable tests.^[18] The courts generally consider the following:

(a) Absence of evidence linking the accused to the offence: A submission of no case to answer will succeed where there is no evidence linking the accused to the commission of the alleged offence. In such circumstances, the prosecution fails to establish even the basic evidentiary foundation required to continue the trial.

(b) Evidence so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could act upon it: Even where some evidence exists, a submission of no case to answer may still succeed if the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited under cross-examination, or is so manifestly unreliable, that no reasonable tribunal could safely rely on it.

(c) Failure to establish the essential ingredients of the offence: A submission of no case to answer will also succeed where the prosecution fails to establish the essential elements of the offence charged. Since criminal liability depends on proof of these ingredients, the absence of evidence on any material element renders the charge unsustainable.

It is important to note that at this stage, the court does not evaluate the evidence to the same depth required at the final judgment stage. Rather, it determines whether there is some credible evidence requiring the accused to offer an explanation. Where such evidence exists, however slight, the court will ordinarily overrule the submission and call upon the accused to enter a defence.

Resting the Defence on the Prosecution’s Case

Where a submission of no case to answer is overruled, the defendant may elect not to give or call evidence, thereby resting the defence on the prosecution’s case. In such circumstances, the defendant, through counsel (where represented), informs the court after the ruling and proceeds to address it. This address constitutes the final address and is expected to be broader in scope than a submission of no case to answer. Counsel will address all issues arising in the case, including insufficiency of evidence, credibility of witnesses, the weight to be attached to their testimony, and relevant points of law.^[19]

Resting the defence on the prosecution’s case is therefore a strategic decision. By adopting this approach, the accused avoids giving evidence and is not exposed to cross-examination by the prosecution.^[20] However, the court proceeds to evaluate the evidence before it and determine whether the prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.^[21]

It is important to note that, even where the defence rests on the prosecution’s case, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout the trial. The accused is under no obligation to prove innocence.

Distinctions Between the two Procedures

Although both procedural options arise at the close of the prosecution’s case, they differ in several important respects.^[22]

First, a submission of no case to answer is a formal legal application, whereas resting the defence on the prosecution’s case is a tactical decision by the defence not to call evidence.

Second, the consequence of a successful no case to answer is the immediate discharge of the accused without the need to enter a defence. By contrast, where the defence rests on the prosecution’s case, the trial proceeds to final addresses and ultimately to judgment.^[23]

Third, a submission of no case to answer invites the court to determine whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case, whereas resting the defence on the prosecution’s case requires the court to evaluate the evidence in its entirety in determining whether the prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.^[24]

Finally, the procedural risks differ. Where a submission of no case to answer fails, the accused may still elect to open a defence. However, where the defence rests entirely on the prosecution’s case, the accused forfeits the opportunity to present evidence in support of the defence.^[25]

Conclusion

The procedural options of submitting a no-case-to-answer and resting the defence on the prosecution’s case constitute important safeguards within Nigerian criminal procedure. Both mechanisms reinforce the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While a submission of no case to answer provides a formal avenue for challenging the legal sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence at an early stage, resting the defence on the prosecution’s case allows the defence to rely on the inherent weaknesses in the evidence without presenting additional testimony.

A clear understanding of the distinctions between these procedural mechanisms is essential for effective criminal litigation. Defence counsel must carefully assess the strength of the prosecution’s case and adopt the strategy that best protects the interests of the accused while preserving the integrity of the criminal justice process.

Reference:

1. James Atta Agaba, Practical Approach to Criminal Litigation in Nigeria (4^th Edition Renaissance Law Publishers Ltd, Lagos, 2022) pp. 900 – 927 ↑
2. Ibraheem, Ojo Tajudeen, ‘No Case Submission Under Nigerian Law’ (2013) V0l.2 No.1, International Journal of Innovative Research & Development. ↑
3. Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended); Section 135(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 ↑
4. (2024) LPELR-81913(SC) ↑
5. Per ADAMU JAURO, JSC (Pp 31 – 31 Paras D – D) ↑
6. UZOAGBA & ANOR v. COP (2012) LPELR-15525(SC) ↑
7. OKEJERE v. STATE (2025) LPELR-80675(SC) ↑
8. Suberu v State (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 520) 1263 at 1274 ↑
9. Fagoriola v FRN (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 724) 74; Agbo v State (2010) LPELR – 4989 (CA) ↑
10. ADAMU v. STATE (2014) LPELR-22696(SC) ↑
11. Nwede v. The State (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 444; Ali & Anor v. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 68) 1; Magaji v. The Nigerian Army (2008) 5 SCM 126 ↑
12. UTTEH v. STATE (1992) LPELR-6239(SC) ↑
13. I.G.P v Sonoma (2021) ALL FWLR (Pt. 1102) 41 ↑
14. (2017) LPELR-41386(SC) ↑
15. Per KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC (Pp 27 – 28 Paras F – F) ↑
16. Ekwunugo v. F.R.N. (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt.111) 630. ↑
17. (1977) All NLR 146 per Udo Udoma, JSC; also found in (1977) LPELR – 904 (SC) 1 @ 15-16 A ↑
18. See also, Ekwunugo v. F.R.N (Supra); Ibeziako v. C.O.P. (1963) 1 SCNLR 99; Owonikoko v. The State (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.62) 381; Agbo v. The State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1365) 377; C.O.P v. AMUTA (2017) LPELR-41386(SC) ↑
19. James Atta Agaba, Practical Approach to Criminal Litigation in Nigeria (4th Edition Renaissance Law Publishers Ltd, Lagos, 2022) p. 911 ↑
20. See Akpan v State (Supra); Queen v Sharripal Sinigh (1962) 2 WLR 238; Nwede v State [1985] 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 444 at 456. ↑
21. Nwede v State (Supra) ↑
22. James Atta Agaba, Practical Approach to Criminal Litigation in Nigeria (4th Edition Renaissance Law Publishers Ltd, Lagos, 2022) pp. 913 – 914 ↑
23. C.O.P v. AMUTA (Supra) ↑
24. Akpan v State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 27) 225 ↑
25. Shorumo v State (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 568) 864 at 892 ↑