As to the differences in names, he argued that the names are the same and referred to one and the same person. He contended that the issue of whether surname came first or not, is not relevant to the issue of admissibility as it has been customary for people to write their surname first before their names and urge the court to take judicial notice of this fact. He further contended that it is not the responsibility of the EFCC to direct the defendant to write the full name of his friend and so the argument that the name of the person authorized to interpret and record the statement of the defendant does not reflect the same name as appeared on the defendant’s statement, is baseless. - Atiku Abubakar V. INEC (2020) 12 NWLR Pt 1737 P 32 at 172 Paras C – G. The prosecuting counsel further submitted that the provisions of Section 83 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 does not apply in this application as an IPO can tender all documents received by him in the course of investigation, and the statement sought to be tendered, was made to PW3 in the course of investigation, therefore the appropriate person through whom it can be tendered in evidence he was also the one who wrote the words of caution and not the interpreter. It was his further submission that when a word of caution was administered in English language and the defendant signed it, the defendant is presumed to have understood same and cannot be later heard to say that he doesn’t understand the language. - Asuquo V. State (2016) LPELR 40597 Pgs 15-16. Page 28 of 43