The University of Jos Registrar has identified the certified 7 documents purported to have emanated through the office of the registrar but insisted the signature of his former predecessor didn’t reflect in the vanguard newspaper publication of Page 47.
The Federal High Court siting Jos on Tuesday between Abdulnasir Saleh and the former Deputy Speaker Plateau House of Assembly, Rt. Hon Ibrahim Baba Hassan and Two others has adjourned to 10th April, 2018 for ruling and the continuation of hearing on alleged certificate scam.
The principal witness in his continuation of statements, presented paragraph 8 payment of N5,000.00 charge to the university as administrative which the registrar recognized it a remnant from the payment schedule ,saying the procedure for him to identify the said documents is through letter headed paper.
However, Paragraph 9 of the statement was oath of which made reference from the registrar of UJ dated 29-03-2016 carrying out the logo of the university with signature of the out gone registrar he also satisfied.
Then, the paragraph 10 which a reply letter dated 14-04-2016 he identified the letter headed paper of the University of Jos and also signed by the registrar, Barr. Jili Ndandam .
In related development, Paragraph 11 was a document written by Ogbo-Ogbo & Associates dated 8-04-2016 by the registrar of UJ endorsed as having received from the office.
While the paragraph 12 was same statement indicating statement of payment of N5k made available verification of information identified through receipt from the University of Jos which was satisfied.
Adding, he said the paragraph 13 dated 13th April, 2016 the deputy registrar signed and paragraph 14 published in page 47 of the Nigeria vanguard newspaper publication carried letter headed paper of the university of Jos but no signature of the university registrar on it ,as the university doesn’t published in any national dailies without official stamp.
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Solomon Umoh while responding to the application filed by the Plaintiff counsel,Barr. DCO bapawucar faulted the documents tender before the honourable court dated 11-04-2016,14-03-2016 were purported to be received the two documents are computer base the only form render if in compliance with section 84 of the evidence act there is no original certificate to this effect which is just contemplate under section 84 of the evidence act.
He said ,” I have gone through the 15 paragraphs in preposition of the witness and I feel to find compliance in my view with the provision of section 84 neither or 84 (1) ,2 ,3 and 4 have comply with satisfaction along doesn’t and in anyway compromise the mandatory requirements law .
Solomon Umoh raised observation that the documents cannot be admissible because supreme court has resolved in Kubo Vs Dickson that once documents comply court endorse party to admit in 2013 page 4 weekly law report page 34-35 supreme court .
He argued that the judgment says ,if you seek to tender computer evidence that evidence need to do more evidence on that so we stand to object to the application by asking this honourable court to stroke out the matter for lack merit .
Solomon reiterated that the two documents to have received as 8 ,12 reference a letter that was dated 13 -04-2016 ,29th March, 2916 ,and 14th April, 2018 the 3 letters are address to a chamber of Aleyi Oloche &co were not sign by the witness yet he decided to go ahead to satisfied them .
The satisfied copies including the photocopied no explanation has been given in the 15 paragraph were the original are not available or to show it emerged from the university without the original documents.
Secondly, the last one the letter dated 8-04 2016 page 11 no subpoena.
The Second defendants counsel, Barr. Ladak Safer agreed with the submission of senior advocate of Nigeria vanguard newspaper publication has failed to meet the standard of satisfaction in page 106 of the evidence act the name, rank of the officer who satisfied on the documents didn’t appear so the documents lack merit.
The 3rd defendants, Miss F N Ibrahim also agreed with the first, second defendants as the documents didn’t comply with the provision of section 84, 89,106 of evidence act so I humbly call on the court reject the application.