YAKUBU V. STATE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 233
ON EFFECT OF FAILURE OF TRIAL COURT TO RECORD USE OF INTERPRETER IN SUBSEQUENT TRIAL DAYS WHERE RECORDS USE OF AT COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL
It is desirable and a constitutional duty for a trial court to make a full record of the proceedings before it in a criminal case.
However, where a trial court indicates in its record that an interpreter was provided at the commencement of trial, failure to record the fact on subsequent days of the trial will not vitiate the trial per se.
It is only when it is shown that there was no interpreter provided at all and that the accused person does not understand the language in which the proceedings of the court is conducted, that such failure would be fatal and would vitiate the trial.
Once it is shown that there was an interpreter at the commencement of the trial, there is a presumption of regularity that the interpreter was present on subsequent days, even though not so recorded, unless proved otherwise.
In other words, the mere absence of a record of the presence of an interpreter does not amount to proof that there was none or that the accused person’s right to fair hearing was breached.
The presumption of regularity as provided for in section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) will apply in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
In the instant case, the appellant led no specific evidence to show that there was no interpreter in court on the date PW1 testified and thus did not rebut the presumption of regularity enjoyed by the proceedings of the trial court.
[Nwokocha v. A.-G., Imo State (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1513) 141; F.R.N v. Mohammed (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1413) 551; F.R.N v. Ogunrombi (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1675) 538; Ogidi v. State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 918) 286; Olanrewaju v. State (2020) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1734) 1; FRN v. Kayode (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1706) 430; Anyanwu v. State (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt. 783) 107 referred to.]
(Pp. 247–248, paras. G-C; 256–257, paras. F-G)
YAKUBU V. STATE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 233
ON PRESUMPTION RAISED WHERE INTERPRETER PROVIDED AT ARRAIGNMENT BUT RECORD OF COURT DOES NOT SHOW INTERPRETER WAS PROVIDED AT SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS
Where an interpreter is provided at the arraignment of the accused and the record does not show that an interpreter was provided at the subsequent proceedings, there is a presumption of regularity that an interpreter was provided during subsequent daily proceedings, unless the accused is able to prove otherwise.
Where a party is fully and adequately represented by his counsel, he cannot complain that his fundamental right to fair hearing or right to interpreter was breached.
In the instant case, it was evident and apparent that there was a sworn interpreter, Francis Ambi, who interpreted from English to Hausa language for the appellant.
If the record on the proceedings of 13/11/2024 and 1/11/2017 did not clearly show that Francis Ambi did not interpret for the appellant, it behooved on the appellant to cry out immediately.
If he was silent and confused about what transpired in court on those days, he was represented by counsel. Hence, he could not be heard to complain.
[Olanrewaju v. State (2020) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1734) 1; Mfa v. Inongha (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1397) 343; Hamidu v. State (2024) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1958) 209 referred to.]
(Pp. 247, paras. E-G; 248, paras. C-G; 259–260, paras. E-B)
Per OGBUINYA, J.S.C. at page 251, paras. E-G:
“The record, the bedrock of the appeal, amply demonstrates that the appellant was represented by a legal practitioner throughout the length and breath of the proceedings in the trial court which midwifed the appeal.
At once, the evidence on record galore that he enjoyed the unsolicited assistance of an interpreter throughout the gestation period of the case, which birthed the appeal, in the temple of justice of the trial court.
The cumulative effect of these is this. There was no atom of erosion of the appellant’s inviolable right to fair hearing as warehoused in the provision of section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution, as amended.”
YAKUBU V. STATE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 233
ON EFFECT OF FAILURE OF ACCUSED TO OBJECT TO NON-PROVISION OF INTERPRETER AT TRIAL
Once an accused person or his counsel fails to object to the non-provision of an interpreter at trial, his right to object is lost forever.
Such a right cannot be invoked on appeal.
If an accused person and his counsel did not ask for an interpreter during trial, the failure to supply one is treated as a matter of procedure and a conviction stands except the trial court is satisfied that the failure to supply an interpreter led to miscarriage of justice.
Where an accused person is represented by counsel, objection to failure to provide an interpreter must be taken at the trial and not on appeal.
This is because, once an accused person and his counsel acquiesced to an irregular procedure and there is no miscarriage of justice, he cannot be heard to complain of the procedure on appeal.
Where there is such a complaint of non-interpretation, it is the duty of the accused/appellant to show that such non-interpretation has caused him miscarriage of justice.
The constitutional right to have an interpreter cannot be invoked on appeal as a ground for setting aside a conviction by an appellant who had been represented by counsel at the trial unless he claimed that right at the proper time and he was denied same.
In the instant case, there was nowhere in the proceedings of 13/11/2024 and 1/11/2017 at the trial court that the appellant’s counsel objected to the breach of the appellant’s right to fair hearing to an interpreter until on appeal.
Furthermore, the appellant did not prove and demonstrate the injustice and miscarriage of justice he suffered for the denial of his right to an interpreter.
[Okoro v. State (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1290) 351; Egbedi v. State (1981) 11–12 SC 98; Onyia v. State (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 142 referred to.]
(Pp. 249, paras. A-H; 250, paras. D-F)
USMAN V. STATE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 261
ON NEED TO RECORD EXTRA-JUDICIAL STATEMENT OF ACCUSED IN LANGUAGE HE SPEAKS
The requirement of the law with regard to the recording of the statement of the accused is that the statement should be, whenever practicable, be recorded in the language spoken by the accused person.
It is a practical wisdom directed to avoid technical arguments which could be raised. It is not an invariable practice but one to ensure the correctness and accuracy of the statement made by the accused person.
[Hamza v. State (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1699) 418 referred to.]
(P. 289, paras. A-C)
USMAN V. STATE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 261
ON WHETHER POLICE CAN RECORD STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND INTERPRET TO HIM
It is the practice and procedure of the police to record the statement of the accused person and interpret same so long as the officer follows the laid down procedure in obtaining the statement of the accused person, the statement is recorded in the language he understands and it is interpreted to him.
(P. 289, paras. C-D)
USMAN V. STATE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 261
ON WHETHER EXTRA-JUDICIAL STATEMENT INADMISSIBLE WHERE RECORDED AND INTERPRETED BY SAME PERSON
The fact that a statement was recorded and interpreted by one and the same person does not automatically render the statement or confessional statement inadmissible, especially where the accused person was represented by a counsel who raised no objection to the admissibility of such document.
In criminal litigation, once it is shown that the contents of a document was read and interpreted to the accused and he understood it, such document is admissible, especially where the accused is represented by a counsel who raises no objection to the admission of such document.
It is not undesirable for a police officer who took the statement to interprete same. The interpreter must be called to give evidence on oath at trial.
Where the recorder and the interpreter of a statement are the same, so long as the person confirms on oath before the court the
circumstances of the taking and recording of the statement, the statement would be admissible.
In the instant case, the requirement of the law was complied with as the police officers, PW5 and PW7, who recorded the appellant’s statements were in court and testified during the trial.
They were bound by solemn affirmation to state the truth and there was no form of objection at trial that exhibits “E”, “E1”, “H” and “H1” so admitted, being the confessional statements, were wrongly interpreted.
AMEYI SHAYE. V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 113.
On Whether right to an interpreter can be invoked on appeal as a ground for setting aside a conviction
Once an accused person or his counsel failed to object to the non-provision of an interpreter at trial, the right to so object is lost forever. Such a right cannot be invoked on appeal. In the worst-case scenario, if the accused person and his counsel did not ask for an interpreter during trial, the failure to supply one is treated as a matter of procedure and a conviction stands, except the trial judge is satisfied that the failure to supply an interpreter led to miscarriage of justice. Where an accused person is represented by counsel, objection to failure to provide an interpreter must be taken at the trial and not on appeal. The reasoning is simple. Once an accused person and his Counsel acquiesced to an irregular procedure and there is no miscarriage of justice, he cannot be heard to complain of the procedure on appeal. In the instant case, the appellant did not prove and demonstrate before the court what injustice and miscarriage of justice he suffered for the denial of his right to an interpreter. Thus, where there was such a complaint, it is the duty of the appellant to show that such non-interpretation caused him miscarriage of justice.
[Okoro v. State (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1290) 351 referred to.] (Pp. 139-140, paras. G-D)
AMEYI SHAYE. V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 113.
On Whether party fully represented in court can complain of lack of fair hearing because of absence of interpreter –
Where a party is fully and adequately represented by his counsel, he cannot complain that his fundamental right of fair hearing or right to interpreter was breached. His counsel is his eyes. If the counsel he hired is blind and falls into a ditch, he has to bear the brunt or can go against the counsel for damages for the breach of his right that the counsel did not protect or defend. In the instant case, being a capital offence, the appellant was ably represented by a counsel all through in the court proceedings including the contested proceeding of 12th March, 2014, when his plea was taken in English.
[MFA v. Inongha (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1397) 343; Hamidu v. State (2024) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1958) 209 referred to.] (Pp. 138, paras. E-G)
SHAYE. V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 113.
On Whether right to an interpreter can be invoked on appeal as a ground for setting aside a conviction
Once an accused person or his counsel failed to object to the non-provision of an interpreter at trial, the right to so object is lost forever. Such a right cannot be invoked on appeal. In the worst-case scenario, if the accused person and his counsel did not ask for an interpreter during trial, the failure to supply one is treated as a matter of procedure and a conviction stands, except the trial judge is satisfied that the failure to supply an interpreter led to miscarriage of justice. Where an accused person is represented by counsel, objection to failure to provide an interpreter must be taken at the trial and not on appeal. The reasoning is simple. Once an accused person and his Counsel acquiesced to an irregular procedure and there is no miscarriage of justice, he cannot be heard to complain of the procedure on appeal. In the instant case, the appellant did not prove and demonstrate before the court what injustice and miscarriage of justice he suffered for the denial of his right to an interpreter. Thus, where there was such a complaint, it is the duty of the appellant to show that such non-interpretation caused him miscarriage of justice.
[Okoro v. State (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1290) 351 referred to.] (Pp. 139-140, paras. G-D)