CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Fundamental Rights — Fair Hearing — Record of Proceedings — Presumption of Regularity Where Interpreter Recorded at Commencement of Trial
Principle Statement
Where the record shows that the charge was read and explained to the appellants before they pleaded, that is sufficient recording to show that an interpreter was employed or present. It was not necessary for the court to record the use of an interpreter on subsequent days of trial.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Ogidi & Ors v. State (2005) NLC-2032003(SC) at p. 25; Paras B–C.
"This shows that the charge was read and explained to the appellants before they pleaded. This to me is sufficient recording to show that an interpreter was in fact employed or present at the hearing. It was therefore, not necessary for the court to have made a record of the use of an interpreter on subsequent days of trial."
Explanation / Scope
Once the record shows an interpreter was used at the commencement of trial, it is presumed to continue. Daily recording of interpreter presence is not required. The principle applies to constitutional law and criminal procedure. The rule applies the presumption of regularity to court records. The record at arraignment suffices to show compliance with fair hearing requirements. Subsequent days need not repeat the notation.
