I have gone through the testimonies of DWs 1 and 2 in the witness box. I have also perused the documents, exhibits 12, 12 (a)13, 14,15,16,16(a) 17-17 (c) admitted in evidence through DW2. I will consider these exhibits first before I proceed to make my findings. Firstly, exhibits 12 and 12(a) are purported application for purchase of Federal Government Houses located at No. 84 Yakubu Gowon, Asokoro and No 11B Vanem Crescent Maitama, Abuja by one Ebikabowie Victor. DW2 also in his evidence testified thus:“32222I now told P.A that I cannot proceed except I give him a form to give to the nominal complainant and affix his picture then I will process it.” DW2 identified the two applications and they were received in evidence without objection. However, this is a Court of law and what does the law prescribes before the admissibility of such documents? In the instant case, a careful perusal of the two exhibits show that the two exhibits were presented to Ad- Hoc Committee and the Committee affixed their official stamp on 5th October, 2011 on the duplicate copy. Thus, by the Ad-Hoc Committee affixing its official stamp on the return copy or duplicate copy, even though the exhibits 12 and 12 (a) are in the position of a public document, the endorsement by Ad-Hoc committee with its official stamp makes the two exhibits primary evidence. See AJOR ENEJI V THE STATE, (2013) LPELR 20393 (CA), NWOBODO V ONOH (1984) 1SC1. Now that exhibits 12 and 12 (a) are admissible, was it proper in law to tender same and admit them in evidence through DW2 who was not the maker of the documents i.e exhibits 12 and 12(a)? In the recent case of ABDULATEEF ABDULSALAM V THE STATE, (2018) LPELR 45371, the Court of Appeal Jos Judicial division held:“The law is well settled that documents produced by parties in evidence in course of hearing are to be tested in open Court before the Court can evaluate them to determine their relevance in the determination of the case upon which the documents are 34