Muhammed are one and the same person and the court held that they are one and the same person. The defendant did not deny that the name of the charge was not his name when his plea was taken. Furthermore, the defence counsel has also argued that PW3 is not the maker of the statement, that argument is frivolous because the statement was made to the IPO through whom it was sought to be tendered. The provisions of Section 83 (c) of the Evidence Act 2011, does not apply. An IPO can tender all documents received by him in the course of investigation and the statement sought to be tendered was made to him in the course of investigation and he is the only person who can tender it because he has also informed the court that it was him who wrote the words of caution before he volunteered his statement. The interpreter is not the proper person to tender the statement because counsel did not site any authority that interpreter must tender the statement as the proper person to tender it, is the investigating officer as it was to him that the statement was made by the defendant. The interpreter only recorded what the defendant has said. As to the argument that the language that was interpreted which is the Hausa language, the Supreme Court stated that when a word of caution was administered in English language and the defendant signed to have understood it, he cannot be heard to say that he doesn’t understand the language. See Asugyo V. State (2016) LPELR 40597 Pgs 1516 Paragraph E-D. In this case the cautionary were administered in English language and the witness signed to have understood same after it was translated into Hausa to the defendant and the defendant thereafter made his statement in Hausa language Page 24 of 43