COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER ISLAMIC LAW AND EVIDENCE ACT 2011

ABSTRACT This research conducts a comparative analysis of burden of proof under Islamic law and the Evidence Act 2011 within Nigeria's pluralistic legal system. The study examines the historical evolution, philosophical foundations, and practical applications of burden of proof in both systems, identifying significant convergences and divergences. Islamic law's approach derives from divine sources and emphasizes moral certainty and religious ethics, while the Evidence Act's framework stems from common law traditions prioritizing procedural consistency and pragmatic dispute resolution. The research reveals distinctive approaches to burden allocation across different case categories, with particularly notable differences in criminal proceedings, where Islamic law applies graduated standards depending on offense gravity. Contemporary practice demonstrates emerging convergence in commercial matters alongside continuing divergence in family law and criminal cases. The study identifies jurisdictional conflicts and enforcement challenges arising from Nigeria's legal pluralism, while documenting reconciliation attempts through judicial decisions, legislative initiatives, and academic proposals. The research concludes by proposing legal reforms, procedural harmonization, and educational initiatives to enhance coherence while respecting legitimate legal pluralism. This comparative analysis contributes to scholarly understanding of evidence law in pluralistic contexts while providing practical insights for legal practitioners navigating Nigeria's complex judicial landscape.