AC forensic expert denies deposing to affidavit

Dapo Falade with Agency Report - 13.03.2008

Proceedings at the Election Petition Tribunal in Ekiti State took an interesting dimension yesterday as Mr. Adrian Forty; the Action Congress (AC) forensic expert stunned the court when he denied that he did not depose to any affidavit on May 11, 2007 as claimed by the petitioner.

Forty, while being cross-examined by lead counsel to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr. Roland Otaru (SAN) and lead counsel to Governor Segun Oni, Mr. Adebayo Adenipekun (SAN), at the resumed hearing of the tribunal, said he was in London, on the day in question contrary to the deposition in the affidavit in which he was presented to the tribunal as the deponent before the secretary of the tribunal on May 11, 2007.

Earlier posers had been raised as to the veracity of the affidavit as Adrian Forty on the day in question sworn to an affidavit that he was receiving instruction from one Uba Nsugbe in London.

This was laid to rest yesterday when Forty told the tribunal under cross examination that he was in London throughout May 11, 2007.

“I am not the author of exhibit PW 17A (the controversial affidavit). On February 14, 2008, I was before the registrar in Ekiti,” Forty said, claiming that he only made deponent on February 14, 2008 and not May 11, 2007 as claimed in the AC’s petition.

Apart from the affidavit purportedly sworn to on May 11, 2007 by Forty, one of the counsel to the AC, Mr. Lanre Sulyman Babakebe, had sworn to another affidavit on February 25, 2008 maintaining that Forty actually deposed to the affidavit in question.

Babakebe said in paragraph seven of the statement on oath: “That I know as a fact that Adrain Forty was before the Commissioner of Oath to endorse the written statement s on oath contrary to the insinuation that he was not present on 11th May, 2007 and 14th February, 2008 before the commissioner for oath.”

Also speaking on the processes of the forensic exercise, Forty said; “I was not present during the scanning of the ballot papers and did not see any of the machines used for the scanning,” adding that, he did not see the original of the ballot papers until yesterday (Tuesday).

He also affirmed that the result of the forensic examination could either be objective or subjective; saying he only relied on Visual Method, which involves the use of naked eye for the examination.

He admitted under cross examination that human thumb could make at least six difference impressions depending on how it is placed on the paper and that cropping of scanned image could add, delete or alter the image.

While cross examining Forty, counsel to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chief Kunle Kalejaiye pointed out that “one of the guidelines in forensic exercise is the availability of a Chain of Custody Log Book, which must be attached to the report. This log book is used to trace the contact from every person that ever comes in contact with the samples to be examined up to the final stage.

This was corroborated by Mr. Forty but declined to explain why the log book was not attached to the report.