Prosecuting counsel finally urge the court to discountenanced with the submission of the defence counsel and admit the statement in evidence. In his reply to the submission of the prosecuting counsel, the learned silk submitted that issue of order of arrangement of names cannot be viewed as inconsequential as the Supreme Court has held that it is fraudulent for any person to use different names chamelionically. - PDP V. Degi-erenieye (2020) LPELR 49734. Learned silk then finally submitted that Section 83 of the Evidence Act 2011 applies in this matter and urge the court to reject the statement sought to be tendered. As to the irregularities in the name of the defendant and that of the interpreter/recorder of the defendant’s statement sought to be tendered in evidence, the contents of the said statement sought to be tendered in evidence, the contents of the said statement shows that the name of the defendant as written on the statement, is “Mohammed Dahiru” while the name of the defendant on the charge sheet, is “Dahiru Muhammed”. Similarly while the person authorized by the defendant to interpret and record his statement as can be seen on the statement sought to be tendered, is one “Umar Moh’d Mohammed Yabo” but the name of the person whose name was written at the end of the defendant’s statement as recorder is one “Umar Mohammed Yabo”. Dealing with the discrepancy in names, the Supreme Court Per Abba Aji JSC in the case of Abubakar V. INEC (2020) 12 NWLR PT 1737 P 37 at 172 has this to say:- Page 29 of 43