(ii) That though PW3 said it was one Umar Mohammed Yabo that was authorized by the defendant to record and interpret his statement, the name of the person on the document sought to be tendered as the recorder and interpreter, is one Umar Mohammed Mohammed Yabo. Defence counsel then argued that PW3 not being the interpreter and recorder of the statement of the defendant, the said statement by virtue of Section 83 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011, cannot be tendered through him as it is a documentary hearsay and inadmissible. - Ezeazodosiako V. Okeke (2005) 16 NWLR Pt 952 P 612. - FRN V. Usman (2012) 8 NWLR Pt 1301 P 141. He submitted that the prosecution has not led any evidence laying foundation as to why the interpreter who is also the recorder of the statement could not be in court. (iii) That from the evidence of PW3, the statement sought to be tendered, is a product of questions and answers sessions which according to the defence counsel, is inadmissible. Responding to the objection of the defence counsel, the prosecuting counsel submitted that the argument that the statement of the defendant was a product of questions and answers, cannot be sustained as there is a difference between questions and answer session and an interview and whether or not the statement was based on question and answer session, can only be determined when the statement is admitted from the flow of its contents. Page 27 of 43