Important Notice: Reading on PHOENIX? Click “Read Original” to Access the Full Story..
During a live interview session on Channels Television on Friday, June 19th 2026, Monday Ubani has weighed in on legal standards in criminal bribery allegations, emphasizing evidentiary burdens, jurisdictional limits, and the centrality of the presumption of innocence in criminal trials.
Speaking on the legal principle governing bribery cases on Diezani Alison, Ubani explained that once prosecution establishes the element of gratification, the burden may shift to the defence to provide an explanation.
“In criminal allegation of bribery, once gratification is proved, the onus shifts to the defence,” he said, stressing that courts often require accused persons to account for the source or purpose of such benefits once a prima facie case has been established.
He argued that such legal reasoning does not automatically imply wrongdoing tied to official duties unless clearly proven in court. According to him, defendants are entitled to challenge the inference that any alleged benefit was connected to official influence or position.
“That this has nothing to do with my official position or influence,” Ubani noted, describing the type of rebuttal commonly raised by defence teams in corruption-related trials.
Ubani also addressed the concept of double jeopardy, clarifying that it does not apply across different countries with independent legal systems. He said legal protections against being tried twice for the same offence are limited to the jurisdiction where the original trial occurred.
“When you say double jeopardy, it is only within the same sovereign state,” he said. “Different countries have different legal systems.”
He explained that because legal frameworks differ internationally, separate jurisdictions may prosecute related conduct independently, provided their laws are allegedly violated.
Ubani further reflected on prosecutorial discretion and the broader purpose of criminal litigation, cautioning against trials driven by publicity rather than justice.
“You choose your battle,” he said, questioning the intent behind certain prosecutions. “What do you want to achieve in this prosecution? Is it conviction or just to make a name that you have taken her to court?”
He also reinforced the long-standing principle of criminal justice that favours the accused in cases of doubt, describing it as a safeguard against wrongful conviction.
“It is better for nine guilty persons to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted wrongly,” he stated, highlighting the foundational doctrine of presumption of innocence.
Ubani added that where gaps exist in the prosecution’s case, courts are obliged to resolve them in favour of the accused, ensuring fairness in the adjudication process.
“If there is any gap in evidence, it is resolved in favour of the accused,” he said.
