position to adduce even the secondary evidence. This entitles the Applicant to a waiver or release in line with the Court’s ruling when it held that: “This burden will however shift where the party has sufficiently adduced evidence to establish the fact or where there is a legal presumption or a waiver or a release.” See LIEUTENANT COLONEL SILAS JOCK SANTOI v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA; ECW/CCJ/JUG/01/19 @ Pg. 16 83. In this circumstance, the burden shifts to the Respondent who in any case put up a defence by tendering annexure C (the final report of the Committee submitted to the Chief Justice).This position aligns with an earlier decision of the Court where it held that “….the claimant has the responsibility for adducing evidence on every point necessary to prove his case. In practical terms, the burden does not always lie on the claimant, where a defence is put forward the defendant bears the burden of proving the elements necessary to establish the defence”. See MOUKHTAR IBRAHIM v. GOVERNMENT OF JIGAWA STATE & 2ORS ECW/CCJ/JUD/12/14 84. The court will now subject the said Annexure C to both the admissibility and probative tests to determine its relevance to the Respondent’s defence. The Respondent filed annexure C to rebut the allegation of the irregularity of the membership of the Committee. Indeed Annexure C contains the names of the three Judges nominated to hear the petition. It also contains the reasoning and the recommendations of the Committee. The Applicant however challenged annexure C on grounds that it is unsigned and undated and therefore not admissible in support of the Respondent’s case. 85. In addressing this issue the Court posits that the effect of an unsigned document is that it lacks authenticity, devoid of any probative value and therefore inadmissible. In MICHEL GBAGBO v. REPUBLIC OF COTE D’IVOIRE ECW/CCJ/03/13 this court held that “where a document is tendered without the signature of the initiator and the signature is so much a vital condition for the validity of the document, the document lacks legal value.” 86. Additionally, the provision of the Judicial Discipline Regulations, 2017 with regards to reports of investigations is further pertinent in addressing the legality of the said annexure C. Section 23(4) thereof provides thus “…the report shall be accompanied by a statement of the vote by which it was adopted and signed by the Chairman and all members of the Committee together 25