Lawal Ijaodola, Senior Associate, G. Elias, in his article, An Examination of The Reverse Onus Rule Under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, notes that a consumer can sue the manufacturer/supplier of defective goods under different causes of action. It can be in breach of contract, negligence, or an enforcement of consumer rights under a statute. In litigation, the onus of proof of a fact in civil cases rests squarely on the party who alleges the existence of that fact. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 (FCCPA) has introduced the reverse onus rule, which provides that where it is alleged by a consumer that a product is defective, the onus of proof shall lie on the manufacturer/supplier to prove that the product is not defective. The relevant provision of the FCCPA would appear to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Evidence Act 2011 on the burden of proof in civil cases. Which of the two laws will prevail? Section 145 of the FCCPA is a specific legislation on the subject matter, while sections 131 – 133 of the Evidence Act are general provisions. Does section 136 of the Evidence Act envisage incidences of the reverse onus? Will absurdity be manifested if section 145 of the FCCPA is adopted? Lawal examines the contending issues and the legality and applicability of the reverse onus rule under the FCCPA.