Dictum in the Case of SENATOR RASHIDI ADEWOLU LADOJA VS SENATOR ABIOLA ADEYEMI AJIMOBI & 3 ORS SC.12/2016, where His Lordship Ogunbiyi JSC, held that, "…the Law is settled on Documents tendered in Court, which purpose and worth must be demonstrated through a Witness. It is Settled also that the Duty lies on a Party who wants to rely on a Document in support of his Case, to Produce, Tender and Link or Demonstrate the Documents tendered to Specific Parts of his Case. The fact that a Document was tendered in the course of Proceedings does not relieve a Party from satisfying the Legal Duty placed on him to link his Document with his Case. See also the Cases of C.P.C V. INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt 1279) 493 at 546 – 547; NA’UMBA VS NAHUCHE (2010) ALL FWLR PART 506 PAGE 1963; AUDU VS INEC (N0.2) (2010) 12 NWLR PART 1212 PAGE 456; ANPP VS USMAN (2009) ALL FWLR PART 463 PAGES 1292, 1337; AMACHREE VS GOODHEAD (2009) ALL FWLR PART 461 PAGES 911, 940. Now, PW4, Mrs. Bolanle Folaranmi, testified that upon a Request by the EFCC, her Institution the NDIC had in their Custody, the Statement of Account with the Defunct AllStates Trust Bank Plc., and she did not only tender these Documents, she explained the Process in which they were obtained in great detail. It is clear that she was NOT the Person who made the Entries in the Statement, as she was only validating its Objectivity. These Documents, particularly the Statement of Account of Ebenezer Retnan Ventures, were adequately demonstrated through Witnesses such as Mr. Adonye Roberts and the IPOs on Record. As regards the Issue of PW6, Mr. Celestine Idiaye, he was a Banker who also explained the Process, the Documents he tendered were accessed, confirmed and verified by his Institution, the Diamond Bank Plc., the Successor of Lion Bank Plc. It is not necessary for the Attendance of the Actual Banker who placed the Entries into the Statements of Account to appear before the Court and in any event, all he could do was to demonstrate the Process. The Prosecution upon receipt of these Statements adequately demonstrated these Documents through Witnesses, both in Chief and under Cross-Examination, who need not be in possession of the Document in order to speak to it. All the Prosecution had to do, was to relate the Documents to Specific Aspect of his Case. See NWEZE JCA (AS HE THEN WAS NOW JSC) in OLAWUYI R. TUNJI & ANOR VS ELDER DAVID BAMIDELE & ORS (2012) 12 NWLR PART 1315 PAGE 477 AT PAGES 491, 492. Further, it is trite that where the Interest of a Maker is merely official and there is no Direct Personal Interest as a Servant or Agent of a Party, the Document so made and sought to be tendered is admissible for all purposes. Reference is made to the Cases of MARITIME SERVICES LTD VS FIRST BANK (1991) 1 NWLR PT 167 PAGE 290 AT 307; WEST MINISTER DREDGING VS OGAN OYIBO (1992) 5 NWLR PT 239 PAGE 77 SUSANO PHARMACEUTICALS VS SOL PHARMACEUTICALS AND SECTION 93 (I) EVIDENCE ACT. Therefore, without further ado, the Court finds the Documents were not dumped and the finds the Argument to be misguided. Before delving into the Substantive Offences, it is important to finally determine the Question raised under Issue 11 formulated by the Defence, which was in regard to the fact that Ebenezer Retnan Ventures was an Unregistered Company, which could not own Property and whether this Venture needed to be a Party to this Action in order to be heard. 44