“The interpreter acts as interpret between the police officer and the accused person. The interpreter understands the language spoken by the accused person and the English language…In court, the interpreter is expected to tell the court the questions he asked the accused on behalf of the police officer and responses given by the accused person. It is only when this is properly done that it can be said that the truth of the statement has been established. The court would have no difficulty concluding that the statement is a correct reproduction of what the accused person told the interpreter.” The court then concluded by saying that before this document which is the statement of the defendant can be admissible in evidence, the interpreter and the recorder if different must testify in it. In the same FRN V. Usman (Supra), Mohammed JSC at Page 1655-1656 has this to say:“Under the law, such statement recorded through an interpreter remains hearsay and therefore inadmissible and can only be confirmed by the evidence of the interpreter as to the questions put to the accused person by the interpreter and the answers given him by the accused person whose statement was being taken in the language understood by him.” In his concurring judgment in the same FRN V. Usman (Supra), Muntaka Coomassie JSC at Page 1657 firmly stated as follows:“…Once a statement is recorded through an interpreter, the interpreter must come to court and give evidence to confirm the authenticity of the statement. The interpreter…who interpreted the statement…from Hausa language to English language and vice versa did not testify in court. Exhibit 2 therefore amounted to hearsay. It was inadmissible.” - Nwaeze V. State (1996) 2 NWLR Pt 428 P 1. - Shivero V. State (1976) 10 NSCC 197. Page 32 of 43