THE NEEDLESS HYPE ABOUT THE ADMISSION OF IDRIS WADA'S FORENSIC EVIDENCE AT THE TRIBUNAL.

By Barr. Omeiza Shadrach, E.

There is always a needless hype from the people who are jittery of the prospect of failure in an adventure. These kind of people will always have imaginary victory and celebrate in the vacuum, but its all a mirage.

The political supporters of Wada, overwhelmed with strange ecstasy ran amok on the dusty street of Jabi and besieged the media hemisphere with the news that, the "forensic documentary evidence" tendered by the Counsel to Wada was admitted in evidence. "That's all". I am sure that even the counsel to their boss will be aghast at the baseless and needless show of the ecstasy by the overzealous supporters.

That the "forensic documentary evidence" was admitted in evidence is not the end of the case neither does it suggests victory for the Petitioner. In fact, is nothing but a footnote of the case which can fall like a pack of cards at any given time. We have seen that nemesis catching up with the so called "expert" that produced the "forensic documentary evidence" when he goofed during the cross-examinations.

So, what does the law say when such evidence is admitted despite a strong objection from the Respondent's counsel (I.e. GYB's lawyer)? The case of Omega Bank Plc Vs. O.B.C Limited, 21 NSCQR 771 at 803, is very instructive here. Edozie, JSC held that, "It ought to be born in mind that although a document may be admissible in evidence under the provisions of Evidence Act, the WEIGHT to be attached to its contents is another matter, for every piece of evidence that has been admitted in the course of proceedings is subject to be tested for credibility, weight or cogency by the trial court before it becomes acceptable." Mark those words, "admissible evidence" and "acceptable evidence". It is one thing for an evidence to be admitted in a proceeding and is another thing for the evidence to be acceptable in a proceeding. So, what the Tribunal simply did in Wada's case was just an admission of evidence, the acceptability of such evidence is still very doubtful. Especially when we consider a blatant contradictions of the so called "expert witness" that produced the "forensic documentary evidence" under cross- examination. The credibility and expertise of the witness was destructively impinged by GYB's Counsel. The so called "forensic documentary evidence" will be weightless when given a judicial scrutiny.      

I am sure the Counsel to the APC, and the Governor know what to do in this scenario. Let me stop here to avoid being lengthy in my submission.

There's nothing be excited about or worth any concern about what transpired today at the Tribunal.