the interpreter of the document sought to be tendered, and not being the interpreter and the recorder of the said statement, same cannot be tendered through PW3 hinder the provisions of Section 83 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011, and when such is the case, it should be regarded as documentary hearsay evidence and inadmissible. See Ezeazodosiako V. Okeke (2005) 16 NWLR Pt 952 P 612; FRN V. Usman (2012) 8 NWLR Pt 1301 P 141. Importantly, is the fact that no foundation has been led as to why the interpreter who also is the recorder could not be able to be in court. This contravenes the provision of Section 83 (1) (b) of the Evidence Act 2011. We submit that it is not for this court to conjecture on this facts but the responsibility of the prosecution to lay the foundation as to the whereabout of the interpreter and the recorder. Based on this, the document sought to be tendered is not relevant to this proceedings as it affects the defendant. Most especially, PW3 has informed this court the EFCC officers including PW3, played no role in the interpretation and recording of the said statement. (iii) There is also evidence from PW3 that there was a question and answer session calumniating into the purported statement sought to be tendered. The law remain trite that any statement obtained as a result of question and answer session, is inadmissible in evidence. We urge the court to reject the statement sought to be tendered. Chile Okoroma Esq: We urge the court to discountenanced with the argument of the learned counsel, for the defendant. Page 22 of 43