Hearsay

The hearsay rule is to protect an accused person from being convicted upon the testimony of a witness who did not see, hear or perceive in any other manner, the facts given in his testimony. Where it is shown that the evidence relied upon to convict an accused person amounted to hearsay, an appellate Court would quash the conviction See: ljioffor Vs The State (2001) LPELR-1465(SC) @ 19 B-F.

Hearsay evidence is defined in Section 37 of the Evidence Act, 2011 as follows:
"37. Hearsay means a statement –
(a) oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding; or
(b) contained or recorded in a book, document or any record whatever, proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in it."
Section 38 provides:
"38. Hearsay evidence is not admissible except as provided in this Part or by or under any other provision of this or any other Act."
In Utteh vs The State (1992) LPELR-6239 (SC) @ 21 A – B; (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.223) 257 @ 273 F it was held that:
"A piece of evidence is hearsay if it is evidence of the contents of a statement made by a witness who is himself not called to testify. It presupposes that if any fact is to be proved against anyone, it ought to be proved in his presence by the testimony of a witness sworn to speak the truth and testifying to facts within his personal knowledge, subject to recognised exceptions."
See also: Arogundade Vs The State (2009) LPELR-559 (SC) @ 23 B – D; Kasa Vs The State (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt.344) 269.

When an interpreted or translated version of an accused statement is sought to be tendered in evidence, unless the interpreter or translator is called as a witness the translated version is hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence. See QUEEN v. ZAKWAKWA 5 FSC 12 at 13; DOGO ADATU v. THE STATE (1980) 2 NCR 33; UTIE v. THE STATE (1980) 2 NCR 69; OLALEKAN v. THE STATE {supra); OKEKE v. OBIDIFE (supra).