“To any ordinary Nigerian and to the mind of the law, this mistake can easily be committed either by the owner of the name or the inscribers of the name.” The defence counsel after highlighting the discrepancies, did not however shows how the discrepancies disqualify the relevancy of the statement sought to be tendered to the fact in issue before this court. Consequently, the objection of the learned defence counsel on this ground, is hereby discountenanced. Defence counsel also argued that since the statement sought to be tendered is a product of questions and answer session and the interpreter who double as the recorder of the statement was not called for the purpose of tendering the statement through him, the said statement is inadmissible. The part of the evidence of witness which is the subject of this contention reads as follows:“The defendant was asked whether he intends to volunteered a statement, and he said yes and as a result, an EFCC statement form with cautionary words on it, was give to the defendant and the cautionary words were explained to him in Hausa by his friend Umar Mohammed Yabo and the defendant said he understood the cautionary words and signed with date. He then authorized his friend Umar Mohammed Yabo to write down the statement for him. After writing the statement in English because he interpreted it from Hausa, the statement was read over to the defendant in Hausa language by his said friend and the defendant accepted the contents to his statement and signed at the end of the statement. His friend Umar Mohammed Yabo also signed as interpreter and recorder. This happened on the 5th July, 2021.” After the witness testified as above and identified the statement which was sought to be tendered through him, the Page 30 of 43