CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ā Fair Hearing ā Right to Interpreter ā Waiver of Right
Principle Statement
The right of the accused to an interpreter cannot be raised on appeal, unless he claimed the right during his trial and was denied it. Although it is a Constitutional requirement that there shall be adequate and free interpretation to the accused of anything said in a language which he does not understand, the procedure may however be dispensed with where the accused so wishes and the trial judge is of the opinion that the accused does not require any interpretation of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Musdapher, JSC (as adopted by Ogbuagu, JSC), in Sampson Nkeji Uwaekweghinya v. The State (2005) 3 SCNJ 32 at 42-43, cited in Udosen v. State (2007) NLC-123-199-2005(SC) at pp. 36ā37; Paras DāA.
"The right of the accused to an interpreter cannot be raised on appeal, unless he claimed the right during his trial and was denied it. Although it is a Constitutional requirement that there shall be adequate and free interpretation to the accused of anything said in a language which he does not understand, the procedure may however be dispensed with where the accused so wishes and the trial judge is of the opinion that the accused does not require any interpretation of the proceedings."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that the right to an interpreter can be waived. An accused cannot raise the issue of lack of interpreter on appeal unless they claimed the right at trial and were denied. The constitutional requirement for interpretation can be dispensed with where the accused wishes and the trial judge is satisfied the accused does not require interpretation. The principle ensures that accused persons cannot remain silent at trial and later complain on appeal. It applies in criminal trials where language interpretation is in issue. The trial judge must record the accused’s decision. The principle promotes fair trial while preventing abuse of the appellate process.
