effect, exhibit A was admitted in evidence without objection Learned counsel did not offer an explanation when he pleaded non est factum to enable both the prosecution and the trial Court know what the defence was up to. It looks like an attempt to spring a surprise. When the appellant gave evidence on oath, he did not deny making exhibit A. All he said on his statement was that the police took his statement and when confronted by his counsel with exhibit A, he said I only know the Arabic alphabets. I cant read the English letters in exhibit A ..... This has not contradicted the evidence of PW3 who testified to the effect that the appellant signed exhibit A by writing his name in Arabic. There is nothing in the testimony of the appellant suggested of the plea of non est factum. This plea appellant's counsel in respect of which the appellant was either not previously or not properly tutored............. since the submission of counsel is not evidence, I hold that the appellant made a statement to the police and since he identified the 'Arabic alphabets' which PW3 said he had inscribed, I believe that the statement is not other than exhibit A (Underlining supplied for emphasis) I cannot agree more with the lower Courts foregoing findings on the issue. I am only to add that even in the domain of civil litigation where the plea of non est factum appears to hold more sway, the law remains sacrosanct that in the absence of fraud or duress the signature of a person on a document is evidence of the fact that he is either the author of the content of the document above his signature or that the contents were brought to his attention before appending his signature. The application of these principles would have left the appellant in the quandary anyway. See Yadia Nigeria Ltd v. Great Nigeria Insurance Company Ltd (2001) 11 NWLR (pt 725) 529.