Proceedings. This Rule renders inadmissible “any Statement other than one made by a Person while giving Oral Evidence in the Proceedings...as evidence of any Fact or Opinion stated.” Reference is made to Cross & Tapper on Evidence, Tenth Edition at Page 578, and R V SHARP (COLIN), 86 CR.APP.R AT 274 AT 278 HL. A Witness is expected to testify in Court on Oath on what he knows personally. If the Witness testifies on what he heard some other Person say, his evidence is Hearsay. If on the other hand his Testimony is to establish the Truth of an Event in question or as in this Case to establish the Truth of the rendition by one Witness to another, then it is Hearsay and inadmissible evidence. Hearsay Evidence is therefore Secondary Evidence of an Oral Statement, best described as Second-Hand Evidence. What a Witness says he heard from another Person may be unreliable for many reasons. For example, he may not have understood the Informant/Interpreters, or he may say things that were never said. The Witness may even exaggerate or understate the evidence he heard. Such evidence remains Hearsay Evidence because it cannot be subject to CrossExamination in the absence of the Informant/Interpreters and lacks probative value. See the Case of FRN VS USMAN & ANOR (2012) LPELR7818(SC) Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C(PP. 19-20, PARAS. F-C). Further Reference is made to KAWU, J.S.C (P 11, PARAS C-E) in the Case of SYLVESTER UTTEH VS THE STATE (1992) LPELR-6239(SC), where His Lordship, referred to the SUBRAMANIAM CASE, which set the Rule against Hearsay. See also Section 37 of the Evidence Act, 2011 particularly SubSection (b). See BUHARI V. OBASANJO (2005) 13 NWLR (PT.941) 1 @ 317; DOMA V. INEC (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 628) 813 @ 829;KEKEREEKUN, J.S.C (P. 55, PARAS. B-C). See the Case of OKEREKE V. UMAHI & ORS (2016) LPELR-40035(SC). Mr. Japheth Wubon had during his Examination in Chief testified that the Defendant had personally notified him to honour any Instruction he received 145