The burden of proof rests on the asserting party

Feb 04, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- In recent days there have been serious assertions made and associations implied without any supporting evidence. In light of this, it is necessary to remind those in our legal profession of the onus of proof and about the difference between coincidence and nexus.

The principle that “he who asserts must prove” is a foundational doctrine in both legal and logical reasoning. It places the burden of proof squarely on the party making a claim or assertion.  This principle ensures that individuals cannot make unsubstantiated allegations and then shift the responsibility to others to disprove them.

The burden of proof in our common law tradition lies with the asserting party. And mere coincidence cannot establish a valid claim without further evidence. The rationale behind the principle is simple: it is unjust to require others to disprove an assertion when the person making the claim has not provided sufficient evidence to justify it in the first place.

For example, if Person A accuses Person B of theft, Person A must present evidence—such as eyewitness testimony, surveillance footage, or forensic analysis—to substantiate the claim. This principle is not only a legal standard but also a logical one. In rational discourse, an assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is a safeguard against frivolous claims and ensures that arguments are grounded in facts rather than speculation.

Therefore, if you make an allegation or an implicit assertion that there was a corrupt transaction, it is for you to prove it. Not for the accused or anyone else to establish otherwise. Shifting the burden of proof to the accused would create an untenable situation where individuals could make baseless accusations and force others to disprove them, leading to chaos and undermining justice. To further illustrate the importance of the burden of proof, it is necessary to distinguish between coincidence and nexus. These terms are often conflated, but they represent fundamentally different concepts.

A coincidence is the occurrence of two or more events or circumstances that happen at the same time or in close proximity but are not causally connected. Coincidences are random and do not imply any relationship between the events. A nexus, on the other hand, refers to a causal or logical connection between two or more events or circumstances. A nexus implies that one event is directly related to or influenced by the other.

The key difference between coincidence and nexus is the presence or absence of a causal relationship. Coincidence is based on chance, while nexus is based on evidence of a connection. Suppose Person X is involved in a car accident on the same day that Person Y, a stranger, wins the lottery. These two events occur simultaneously but are entirely unrelated. There is no evidence to suggest that Person X’s accident had any connection to Person Y’s lottery win. This is a classic example of coincidence—two events happening at the same time without any causal link.

Now, suppose Person X is involved in a car accident because Person Y ran a red light while driving under the influence of alcohol. In this case, there is a clear causal connection between Person Y’s actions and Person X’s accident. The nexus is established through evidence, such as traffic camera footage, witness statements, and toxicology reports, which demonstrate that Person Y’s behavior directly caused the accident.

A common fallacy in legal and logical reasoning is the assumption that coincidence implies causation. This fallacy, known as “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this, therefore because of this), occurs when one assumes that because Event A occurred before Event B, Event A must have caused Event B. However, without evidence of a nexus, such an assumption is unfounded.

For instance, if Person Z claims that their neighbor’s new security camera caused their dog to stop barking, they must provide evidence to support this claim. The mere fact that the dog stopped barking after the camera was installed does not, by itself, establish a causal relationship. It could be a coincidence—perhaps the dog stopped barking due to age, illness, or a change in routine. Without evidence of a nexus, Person Z’s assertion remains unproven.

This principle is particularly important in legal proceedings, where the consequences of accepting unsubstantiated claims can be severe. Courts require plaintiffs to establish a nexus between the defendant’s actions and the alleged harm. Without such evidence, the claim must fail. Therefore, if you are merely saying that a man buys a house at the same time as another man buys land, this will be a coincidence until you can establish a clear nexus between the two. Without evidence to establish a nexus, a claim based on coincidence is inherently flawed and cannot be sustained.

(The burden of proof rests on the asserting party)

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• foundational doctrine, Peeping Tom, sufficient evidence, This principle ensures

---