to him in English Language would not have any meaning to him as he would not have understood same. As far as the translator had signed the translated version, I hold that it does not make any difference that the accused did not sign it”. The other issue raised by the Learned Defence Counsel on the issue of the admissibility of Exhibit A and A1 is that the statement was recorded in the absence of a legal practitioner or other representative of the defendant. As stated by the prosecution counsel in his written address, this requirement of the law is not mandatory. What is required is that the defendant be cautioned in his Language before his statement is recorded and this has been done as could be seen from the evidence of PW1 the IPO in this case. PW1 Sgt. AbdulAzeez Bello stated in his evidence before this Court as follows” I asked him to call his counsel or any other person to be present and he said he don’t have a counsel and don’t want anyone to be present during the recording of his statement. PW1 further stated “I first of all administered words of caution to him in Hausa Language. I read the words of caution to him in Hausa Language and he said he understood the words of caution and signed the words of caution and I also counter signed as a recorder”. From the above it is clear that the investigation police officer had fully complied with the requirements of the law in recording the statement of the defendant in this case. It is therefore the view of this Court that exhibit A and A1 were properly admitted in evidence before this Court and therefore the 14