with any dissenting or separate statements of Committee members” Emphasis ours. 87. This regulation contemplates two (2) actions: Firstly, the report must indicate a statement of the vote of each member. Secondly, the report must also be signed by all members of the Committee. The Court had earlier addressed the implication of the absence of signature on the Report. With regards to the votes, a reading of the said Annexure C shows that it was not accompanied by any statement of votes of members as required by the said regulations. 88. Furthermore, Section 20 of the Judicial Discipline Regulations, 2017 provides that an investigation Committee shall be composed of not less than three and not more than five Members of the Council. 89. As it stands, Annexure C is not only inconsistent with the universal law of Evidence on admissibility of documents but it fails to be in conformity with the provisions of the Regulations under which the Committee was set up. The committee shot its self on both legs so to say. The consequence of this breach is that the Respondent has not discharged the burden of proving the regularity and by extension competency of the Committee. The assertion of the Applicant that only one member presided over the deliberation on the last day is therefore taken as proved. A proceeding where one of its member is absent and therefore unable to partake in the deliberation, to listen to witnesses, watch their demeanour yet sits to render an adverse decision against the Applicant is not only a mistrial but a fundamental defect in the proceedings which renders it a nullity. 90. The Court will therefore not hesitate to declare that the said Annexure C is a worthless piece of paper devoid of any evidentiary value and therefore is inadmissible to support the defence of the Respondent. Consequently the allegation that only one member of the Committee sat to hear the case on 9th of January 2018 same being uncontroverted, establishes as a fact the irregularity of the Committee with regards to its numbers and a conclusive proof of its incompetence which renders the decision emanating from it a nullity. In that wise, the Court aligns itself with the previous decision of this court where it held that “It is a well establish principles of law that a Court is competent when it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualification of members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or another…………..” AFOLABI OLAJIDE Vs FRN (2004) ECW/CCJ/04 page 65 paragraphs 32 (1-3) 26