LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Interpretation of Evidence – Duty of Accused to Request Interpreter
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The fact that the accused does not understand the language in which the trial is being conducted is a fact well known to the accused and it is for him or his counsel to take the initiative of bringing to the notice of the court at the earliest opportunity or as soon as the situation has arisen. If he does not claim the right at the proper time... He may not be able to have a valid complaint afterwards, for example, on appeal.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Adio, JSC, in Madu v. State (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.482) 386 at 402, cited with approval in Durwode v. State (2000) NLC-222000(SC) at p. 15; Paras A–B.
"The fact that the accused does not understand the language in which the trial is being conducted is a fact well known to the accused and it is for him or his counsel to take the initiative of bringing to the notice of the court at the earliest opportunity or as soon as the situation has arisen. If he does not claim the right at the proper time... He may not be able to have a valid complaint afterwards, for example, on appeal."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The right to an interpreter must be asserted at the earliest opportunity. An accused who understands the trial language cannot later claim ignorance to gain appellate advantage. If the accused or counsel fails to request an interpreter when the need arises, the complaint cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This prevents tactical manipulation and requires parties to act promptly to ensure fair hearing. The trial court is not obliged to divine the accused’s linguistic competence without indication from the accused or counsel.