LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Confessional Statement – Statement Through Interpreter – Admissibility
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It often happens that statements have to be made to the Police through an illiterate interpreter and so cannot be written down in the language in which made. What this court has said, as have other courts also on innumerable occasions, is that, where an interpreter has had to be used in the taking down of a statement, the statement is inadmissible unless the person who interpreted it is called as a witness as well as the person who wrote it down. This necessity is frequently overlooked and it may be that rejections of statements for this reason have given rise to a belief that statements are inadmissible unless written in the language in which made. But this is not so; it is a matter of proof and not of admissibility.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Olalekan v. State (2001) NLC-2041999(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras E–A.
"It often happens that statements have to be made to the Police through an illiterate interpreter and so cannot be written down in the language in which made. What this court has said, as have other courts also on innumerable occasions, is that, where an interpreter has had to be used in the taking down of a statement, the statement is inadmissible unless the person who interpreted it is called as a witness as well as the person who wrote it down. This necessity is frequently overlooked and it may be that rejections of statements for this reason have given rise to a belief that statements are inadmissible unless written in the language in which made. But this is not so; it is a matter of proof and not of admissibility."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A confession taken through an interpreter is admissible, but the interpreter must be called as a witness to prove the accuracy of translation. The statement is not inadmissible solely because written in a different language—the issue is proof, not admissibility. Failure to call the interpreter affects the weight and proof of the statement, not its admissibility. The prosecution must establish that what was recorded accurately reflects what the accused said through the interpreter. Without the interpreter’s testimony, the statement may lack sufficient proof, but it is not automatically excluded. This corrects the misconception that such statements are inadmissible