Illiterate

Therefore, the issue or question on who is actually an illiterate can not be presumed by Court but it is an issue or question which must be proved by evidence and as I stated supra, the burden to prove such assertion of illiteracy lies squarely on the person who alleged such illiteracy

UMARU SUNDAY v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA LGC(14/12/2018)K-L

Therefore, the issue or question on who is actually an illiterate can not be presumed by Court but it is an issue or question which must be proved by evidence and as I stated supra, the burden to prove such assertion of illiteracy lies squarely on the person who alleged such illiteracy

UMARU SUNDAY v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA LGC(14/12/2018)K-L

My understanding of who can be regarded as an illiterate is that such person must be a person who can not read, understand and express his opinion by writing in the language which is used in writing it on his behalf. In other words, a person who is unable to read and write in some other language is not an illiterate within the meaning of the Illiterate Protection Act. Therefore, the issue or question on who is actually an illiterate can not be presumed by Court but it is an issue or question which must be proved by evidence and as I stated supra, the burden to prove such assertion of illiteracy lies squarely on the person who alleged such illiteracy

UMARU SUNDAY v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA LGC(14/12/2018)K-L

The essence of recording and tendering the statement of an accused person in the language he understands is to ensure the correctness or accuracy of the said statement. See HAMZA VS. STATE (2019) LPELR – 47 858 (SC) 28. A – D, OLANIPEKUN VS. STATE (2016) LPELR – 4044 (SC) 8, B – D, ASUQUO VS. STATE (2016) LPELR – 40597 (SC) 15 – 16, E – D and OLALEKAN VS. STATE (2001) 18 NWLR (PT. 746) 793. In ADAMU VS. STATE (2019) LPELR – 46902 (SC) 12 – 13, PARA.
A, his Lordship Kekere – Ekun, JSC stated the position of the law thus: “In the instant case, it is argued on behalf of the Appellant, that being illiterate in English Language, for his confessional statement to have been properly before the Court for consideration, both the English and Hausa versions ought to have been tendered.
In order to ensure the correctness and accuracy of a statement made by an accused person and to protect his right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36 (6) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, where he volunteers a statement in a language other than English Language, which is the language of the Court, the statement in the original language in which it was recorded as well as its translation into English Language must be tendered in Court. It affords the accused person the opportunity to challenge in Court if the need arises, his statement as originally recorded or its translation.
It enables the Court to be satisfied that it is his true statement. For this reason, it was held by this Court that the recorder of the statement as well as the interpreter must be produced in Court as witnesses; otherwise the statement remains hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. See FRN VS. USMAN (2012) 8 NWLR (PT. 1301) 141 at 159 – 160 D –B, 161 C-D; 163 C-H; NWAEZE VS. THE STATE (1996) 2 NWLR (PT. 428) 1 at 20, QUEEN VS. ZAKWAKWA (1960) VOL. 1 NSCC 8 at 9.” PER UWA, J.C.A.