- Haastrup V. Roro Terminal Co Ltd (2003) 7 NWLR pt 819 p 358-365. The prosecuting counsel only withdrew his application after he replied the objection of the defence counsel, and having joined issues with the defence counsel, this court decided to discountenanced on the withdrawal application of the prosecuting counsel and admitted the statement in evidence as Exhibits E and E1 for the Hausa and English translated versions respectively on grounds of relevancy. It is trite law that there is however a distinction between admissibility of a document and the weight to be attached to it. A document may be admissible in law, but when put through the crucible of evaluation and ascription of probative value thereto, it may be found to be a worthless document. - I.M.B Nig Ltd V. Dabiri (1998) 1 NWLR pt 533 p 284. - Buraimoh V. Karimu (1999) 9 NWLR pt 618 p 310. After a careful perusal of the 1st Defendant’s statement of 20/12/2018 made at CID Office Sokoto which was admitted in evidence on grounds of relevancy, I observed as rightly submitted by the defence counsel that the said statement particularly Exhibit ‘E’ the Hausa version, was neither signed nor thumb printed by the 1st Defendant. The law is well settled that a document made by a person in whatever capacity ought to be signed by him in order to authenticate it and imbue it with stamp and authority. A document which is not signed by the maker, is a worthless document which does not have any efficacy in law and commands no value in legal proceedings, where it is Page 22 of 27