more than a worthless piece of paper. The Learned Counsel urged this Court to discountenance exhibit A and A1 for the above stated reasons. I have closely examined exhibit A and A1. Exhibit A is the Hausa original version of the statement of the defendant recorded at the C.I.D. office by this witness. Exhibit A clearly was signed by the defendant and also endorsed by the recorder of the statement. While exhibit A1 is the English translated version of exhibit A. Exhibit A is not signed by the defendant but the witness PW1 who is the interpreter clearly signed exhibit A1. I think that has satisfied the requirements of the Law. In the case of Naziru Muhammed v. State (2020) LPELR 50807 CA, the Court of Appeal held as follows: “With regards to the query raised by the Counsel to the appellant on the non-signing of the translated English version of the confessional statement exhibit P2, by the Appellant, the Supreme Court as rightly stated by the Counsel to the respondent, has held hat such non-signing of the translated version is insignificant so long as it was signed by the interpreter. In State v. Saidu (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1680) 308 Okoro JSC made the point at page 321 B-D thus “There is no doubt that exhibit 8A the main statement made in Hausa by the respondent was actually thumb printed by him. There is no quarrel about the statement however the grouse of the respondent is that the translated version not signed by him as made in Hausa Language which he understands. The translated version even if it was read over 13