82. The Respondent however objected to their admissibility on the following grounds: a. That exhibits 1, 3, 6, 11, 12, 18 and 19 are all photocopies and no proper foundation was laid as to what happened to the originals b. That exhibits 21 are pictures to which the rightful person to tender same is the person who took the pictures. c. That the author of exhibit 22 and 23 David Ayuba is not a party in the suit and not before this court. d. With respect to exhibits 11, 12, 18 and 19, that they were not signed nor authored by anybody. e. In particular reference to exhibits 26 and 27 which are the Government white paper reports, the Respondent argued that they are inadmissible since they are public documents they must be duly certified by the authority that produced them. They quoted copiously from the Evidence Law of the RespondentFederal Republic of Nigeria-in support of their claim. In conclusion they urged the Court to reject the photocopies of all the cited documents and declare them inadmissible. 83. The Applicant argued in response that since the Respondent is the maker of the said exhibits 26 &27, and having requested same from the Respondent who refused to obliged, it was in order to tender the photocopies for which they urged the court to rule as admissible. (See Annexure J letter dated 5 th November 2012 addressed to the Attorney General of the Federation requesting for the release of a copy of the white paper report). With regards to the other exhibits, the Applicants maintain that their photocopies are nonetheless admissible. 84. The Court, upon analysing the objection of the Respondent and reply of the Applicants on the admissibility of the above referred documents, states that the Community Court of Justice of the ECOWAS does not rely on the constitutional provisions or other national legislations of Member States to determine its jurisdiction or its practice and procedure. It is trite that if a relevant document is in the possession of the adversary party and where upon request it has been refused, the Applicant can very well tender a copy of the said document. The applicant having proved such request was made (annexure J) has fulfilled the condition precedent and laid the appropriate foundation to tender a photocopy of the said reports. The Respondent having not denied the veracity of the content of the said reports but only to the extent that a foundation was not laid to tender a photocopy; the Court for 22