uphold the objection of the defence counsel and direct the witness not to answer the question . The prosecuting coun sel statement (sic) rephrase his question ." It is the above ruling that brought about this appeal. I must state right away that the ruling of the learned trial magistrate court is a clear statement of the law . It stands . I need only to say that re-examination is not an opportunity to reopen a party' s evidence . It is certainly not an opportun ity to any w it ness to attempt to interprete or explain the content of a docume nt wh ich has been received in evidence and marked as an exhib it . Th e age long legal aph orism is that document speaks for itself. For emphas is sake, ora l eviden ce is in adm issible either to add to or to substrate fro m the contents of a document . See Berende .V. Usman (2005} 14 NWLR (pt 944 ) 1; also Bongo .V. Govt . of Adamawa State & Ors (2013} 2 NW LR (pt 1339} 403 . From the trend of questions and answers, it is clear that the PW! admitted that Exhs "Cl" and "C2" were made in his name. PWl even tried to offer explanation that though the documents were in his name but that it was the defendant that paid for the drugs . That is clear implication of his answer when he said that : "The rece ipts were given to the defendant because he paid for the drugs . It is my name that is written on them ." 8 ,