11(2)“in a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to guilt requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond reasonable doubt.”

13(1) “in any civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

22 “in a criminal action, a presumption operates against the accused as to a fact which is essential to guilt only if the existence of the basic facts that give rise to the presumption are found or otherwise established beyond reasonable doubt, and thereupon, in the case of a rebuttable presumption, the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the presumed fact.”
 - 
THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Per the Evidence Act, (NRCD 323) - OSEI V THE REPUBLIC [2009] MLRG 203, CA, what proof beyond reasonable doubt entitled was explained when it was held, confirming the long held view that “proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt.   - YEBOAH V THE REPUBLIC [1972] 2GLR 281, where the court held that the guilt of the accused must be proved to that degree of certainty required by law.  Accused persons are not under any obligation to prove his innocence.  However, if a case is made out by the prosecution against them, the law requires that they raise a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.- BREMPONG V THE REPUBLIC [1996/97] SCGLR 627, the Supreme Court held:

“Where on the evidence, any legitimate defence was open to the accused, the trial judge must consider it whether raised or not and however, stupid or weak it might appear to him to be”.
