The other evidence adduced by the appellants to prove their case is the Expert Analysis Report prepared by PW1, who by his own admission is a member of the 2nd appellant and had been a Special Assistant to the 1st Appellant and was engaged by the appellants to establish the invalidity of the disputed results in Form EC8A for the 744 polling units. He testified further that “I made the report as directed by the Petitioners” and that “ I am part of those who wrote the petition.” By his own testimony, he established that he was not an independent expert as he had an interest in the subject of his analysis and carried out the analysis from the conclusion that the results were invalid, to justify that conclusion to support the contemplated election petition. It was an analysis from an answer and not from a question. Such a report is not the product of an independent, impartial, detached and professional analysis. He is clearly a person with the disposition or temptation to depart from the truth. In Anyaebosi V V.R.T, Briscoe (Nig) Ltd (Supra), this court held that the likelihood that the maker of a report is tainted by the incentive to conceal or misrepresent facts, renders him a person interested. The listing of the Expert Analysis Report in the petition among the documents to be relied on to prove the petition show it was made in anticipation or contemplation of the petition to be filed. The report having been made by PW1 as a person interested in the subject matter of the report when the petition was anticipated to establish that the election result was invalid is not admissible evidence by virtue of Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) which provides as follows: ‘Nothing in this Section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.’
— E.A. Agim, JSC. Oyetola v INEC & Ors. (2022) – SC/CV/508/2023