objection in her written address. In her written address the Learned Defence Counsel hinged her objection on the fact that in exhibit A1 which is the interpreted version of the defendant’s confessional statement. The Learned Counsel contended that exhibit A1 is devoid of the defendant’s mark or signature and does not have the defendant’s full particulars in order to link the defendant to the alleged confessional statement as the maker. According to the Learned Counsel this is contrary to Section 17(1-2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Sokoto State 2019. Section 17 (2-5) of the ACJL 2019 provides as follows:3) Where a suspect does not understand or speak or write in English Language and interpreter shall record and read over the statement to the suspect to his understanding and the suspect shall then endorse the statement as having been made by him and the interpreter shall attest to the making of the statement. 4) The interpreter shall endorse his name, address, occupation, designation or other particulars on the statement. 5) The suspect referred to in subsection (1) of this Section shall also endorse the statement with his full particulars” It is the contention of the Learned Defence Counsel that failure to record the statement of the defendant in the presence of a Legal Practitioner or other representative of the defendant and also failure of the police officer PW1 to obtain the suspect’s signature and or endorsement of the suspect’s details on the statement adversely affect the statement and made it nothing 12