Ghanaian legal scholar and social commentator Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has defended the use of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials, arguing that it can be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

His comments come amid public debate over the role of circumstantial evidence in legal proceedings following the conviction of New Patriotic Party (NPP) Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi Bosiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi.

In its judgment delivered on July 20, the court relied, among other evidence, on circumstantial evidence in reaching its verdict.

Responding to a question on whether circumstantial evidence can satisfy the criminal standard of proof, Prof. Azar said the law does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence but rather considers the overall strength of the evidence presented.

“The standard of proof does not depend on whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. It depends on the strength of the evidence as a whole,” he wrote in a social media post.

To illustrate his point, the legal scholar used the example of rainfall, explaining that a court could reasonably conclude that it had rained based on soaked ground, puddles and people carrying umbrellas, even if no witness had directly seen the rain fall.

He noted that circumstantial evidence is particularly important in prosecuting offences such as illegal mining conspiracies, corruption and other organised crimes, where perpetrators rarely leave behind direct evidence of their unlawful agreements.

According to him, requiring direct evidence in every criminal case would make it almost impossible to secure convictions for many sophisticated offences.

“The law does not require direct evidence. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence can provide exactly that. Contrary to popular belief, circumstantial evidence is often more reliable than direct evidence,” he stated.