Original Declarant of the Statement confirmed it when he testified before the Court on the same Evidence. Learned Counsel had referred to the Statement made by Imam Ahmed to Alhaji Ibrahim Abubakar that the Defendant had a purported interest in the Property, stating that it constituted Hearsay Evidence. Further, it was contended that the Extra-Judicial Statement of Ibrahim Abubakar in Exhibit Z7 did not support the case of the Prosecution, as the Statement was based on what Ibrahim Abubakar heard from Imam Ahmed on the Purchase of the Property and Imam Ahmed was not called by the Prosecution, thereby making the Statement, Documentary Hearsay. These contentions are closely related to the above and the same deduction applies in this instance. Now, it is important to understand at the get-go that it was the Defence Counsel himself who applied to tender this particular Statement and so the Admissibility of this Statement was not challenged. There is a Presumption that he read everything that was contained in the Statement before he applied to tender it. The Statement was in effect, his Evidence. Now, two of the exceptions to Hearsay Evidence made in regard to Statements in Documents, are the fact that the Maker who is the Human Source of the Information was unavailable to testify because he is either 1) Abroad or 2) Unfound. See Section 39 (b) and (c). There must also be proof that such steps as reasonably practicable to find him have been taken, but his whereabouts remained unknown. In his Statements, Alhaji Ibrahim Abubakar had testified that he could not locate Imam Ahmed and did not know his whereabouts when he was questioned by the EFCC and so could not lead them to Iman Ahmed. There was also the fact that Ibrahim Abubakar could no longer be found and therefore, the inability of the Prosecution to produce both Alhaji Iman and Alhaji Ibrahim Abubakar before the Court is reasonable in the light of the circumstances. Both Parties were identified to the Courts Satisfaction and it can be said that this Exhibit Z7 was the Defendant’s evidence, projected through a 264