01/06/2026
An Excellent Analysis on the Doctrine of Last Seen and the Last Seen Theory in Nigeria Criminal Jurisprudence ⚖️
Do you know that you can bear full responsibility of a person's death for just being the last person to be seen with him?
It is a well settled principle of law as established in SECTION 36(5) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (1999) As amended, that;
> (5). Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty;
This principle, known as the DOCTRINE OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE states that everyone suspected for committing a crime should be merely seen as a suspect and not guilty of the charges until affirmed by the court as one. This is an important concept which establishes the position stating that the Burden in every Criminal Proceeding rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused party. This however doesn't come without an exception and the notable exception to this principle is the DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN also known as the LAST SEEN THEORY IN NIGERIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE.
WHAT IS THE LAST SEEN THEORY?
Illustratively analyzing this principle would be to create a scenario where;
> Mr Emmy was last seen with Mrs Jane and Mrs Jane was suddenly found dead, murdered. The position of the law is that it will be presumed that it was Mr Emmy who is responsible for the death of Mrs Jane. In line with the concept of standard of proof in Criminal cases, the onus would be on Mr Emmy to explain the purpose of showing that he was not the one responsible for the murder of Mrs Jane and if no credible information as to such is provided, the court would have no other option than to sentence him.
This is the most clear scenario of the doctrine of last seen.
The DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN is a principle which establishes, that the law presumes that the person last seen with the deceased bears full responsibility for his or her death. Thus, where an accused person was the last person to be seen in the company of the deceased and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and leads to no other conclusion, there is no room for acquittal.
It would now become the duty of the accused person to give a credible explanation relating to how the deceased met his or her death.
It is indeed trite, that in the absence of an explanation, a trial court and even an appellate Court will be justified in drawing the inference that they accused person killed the deceased.
The application of this doctrine comes into play when the time gap will between the point of time when they accused and the deceased will last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.
It is also important to note, that when there is a long time gap between the time the individuals were last seen together and the findings of the crime committed, and there is a possibility of other person intervening it is hazardous to rely on this presumption as courts ensure their convictions and sentences are based on reasonable inferences.
This was the case in HARUNA V. A.G FEDERATION (2012), where the convict, working with the deceased under the Power Holding Company of Nigeria was held liable for the death of the deceased as a result of the existence of stated facts giving the inference that only he was the last person to be with the deceased before she met her death, which was of such a nature that establishes the commission of the Offence of Murder.
This is a Well Settled Principle of Law in Nigeria Criminal Jurisprudence.
Also see; Madu V. State (2012) 15 NWLR P. 405.
Follow Emmy's Legal Nuggets page for more Insightful nuggets and legal tips.
