which was interpreted in English and recorded in English language. We finally urge the court to discountenanced with the submission of the defence counsel and admit the statement of the defendant in evidence. Prof. Ibrahim Abdullahi SAN: On the argument of the prosecuting counsel on the in consequentiality of order of arraignment of names, we submit that the document sought to be tendered was first in time before the charges before this court. The name given by the defendant was not the name used by the prosecution in the charges before this court. The Supreme Court has held that it is fraudulent for a person to use different names chamelinically. See PDP Ors V. Degierenieyo & Ors (2020) LPELR-49734 (SC). On the cases of Buhari V. Atiku as well Asuquo’s case, we submit that these cases are quite distinguishable from the facts of this case and the case of PDP V. Degi, is the most recent decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and by judicial precedent, it takes precedence over all other cases cited by the prosecution. On the issue that the recorder needs not to be called as a witness to tender the statement arguing that Section 83 of the Evidence Act 2011 is inapplicable, it is our submission that the provision of Section 183 of the Evidence Act 2011, applied to all proceedings including civil and criminal proceedings. We refer this court to the opening phrase of the said section. We equally submit that on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of FRN V. Usman & Or (2012) LPELR – 7818 also reported in 2012 8 NWLR t 1301 P 141, the Supreme Court held that such a document can only be tendered through the interpreter or recorder who must testify in court. On the basis of this we urge the court to Page 25 of 43