relied upon. For this reason, any document tendered by a witness other than the maker thereof attracts no probative value in the absence of opportunity given to the other party for cross examination for the purpose of testing its veracity. EMMANUEL V UMNA & ORS (2016) LPELR 40659 (SC), OMISORE V AREGBESOLA, (2015) NWLR (pt 1482) page 205. By the combined reading of section 1 (b) 37, 38, and 83 of the evidence Act, a document which is to establish a fact in a proceeding can only be admissible as evidence of that fact if the maker of the document (statement) is called as a witness otherwise the document( statement) will amount to hearsay for which no probative value shall be ascribed to because the opposing party was denied the opportunity of cross examining the maker of the document. The purpose of a witness is not merely to tender document. A witness needs to be cross examined on the document he tendered and as such he must be the maker. This is why a trial Court cannot dispense with the personal appearance of the person who recorded the contents of a document such as an investigating police officer.” See MAGAJI V NIGERIA ARMY (2008) LPELR 1814(SC). In the instant case the maker of the documents exhibits 12 and 12(a) was not called as a witness. Secondly, if the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants are sincere that it was Ebikabowie Victor that was the author of these documents and DW2 had actually submitted them to Ad- Hoc Committee, certified true copies of such documents, the documents being public document within section 102 of the Evidence Act would have suffice without the rigor or necessity of calling the maker. Thirdly, the DW2 or its Counsel had the opportunity of putting these documents through PW2, the Head or Chairman of the Ad-Hoc Committee whether they have received the documents but he failed to do so. And PW2 testified under cross examination by the 4th and 5th Defendants Counsel as follows:“Applications for sale come to the head and when it comes I direct for investigations. No application would be process without my directives.” This would have been best opportunity for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to put across the documents to PW2 but they failed to 35