What appears trivial to the untrained eye often carries decisive weight in forensic analysis. The recurring misspelling of “CHAIRMAN ” as “CHIARMAN” by Hon. Nafiu Bala is not a random clerical slip; it is a linguistic fingerprint, an individual characteristic within the meaning of forensic document examination. Such unconscious patterns, spelling habits, punctuation style, syntactic preferences, are routinely relied upon to establish authorship.
The law is firmly aligned with this science. Under Sections 101–104 of the Evidence Act 2011 Nigeria, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery, and proof must be credible and cogent. More importantly, Section 68 of the same Act expressly permits comparison of disputed writings with admitted or proved writings of a person. Thus, where a consistent error like “CHIARMAN” appears across undisputed documents and the contested resignation letter, the court is entitled to draw a compelling inference of common authorship.
Judicial authorities reinforce this position. In Adebayo v. State (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1414) 361, the Supreme Court affirmed that handwriting and writing style comparisons, including peculiarities, are valid tools in determining authorship.
Similarly, in Oluwole v. State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 470, the Court recognised that circumstantial evidence, including consistent writing patterns, can ground proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Even more directly, in FRN v. Fani-Kayode, courts accepted documentary inconsistencies and stylistic markers as part of inferential proof linking documents to their originators.
Anecdotally, forensic investigators have exposed elaborate forgeries not through signatures, but through repeated micro-errors, misspellings, peculiar abbreviations, or formatting habits that a forger fails to replicate consistently. These details form a linguistic profile that is exceedingly difficult to fabricate.
In this case, the presence of “CHIARMAN” in the disputed resignation letter aligns seamlessly with Nafiu Bala’s established writing history. It is precisely the kind of inadvertent consistency that defeats allegations of forgery. In law and in forensics, such details are not incidental, they are evidential. Indeed, the devil is in the details, and here, the details speak with unmistakable clarity.
Alex Ter Adum, PhD, former Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General of Benue Statealexadum45@gmail.com
