1. The cautionary words must be well written and signed. 2. The body of the statement written by the accused person or by someone usually a police officer on the accused person's directives given a detailed confession which will show clearly that he committed the offence for which he is charged. 3. The statement must be endorsed by a superior police Officer and signed by the accused person. In the instant case though the Appellant did not sign Exhibit A, Exhibit A1, from which Exhibit A was translated, was signed by the Appellant. Exhibit A1, as is highly recommended, was recorded in the language of the Appellant, the Hausa Language. The wisdom for this as reasoned in OLANIPEKUN VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR ??? 40440 (SC) per Aka???ahs JSC, is to avoid technical ??? 19 arguments which could be raised. Though not an invariable practice, it is to ensure the correctness and accuracy of the statement made by the accused person. Exhibit A1 is for that purpose. It is not the case of the Appellant that the contents of Exhibit A are not the true or correct translation of Exhibit A1, which the Appellant signed. It is also not the Appellant???s case that Exhibit A1 was not voluntary. Both the cautionary word and the main body of Exhibit A1 (the Hausa version) were duly thumb printed by the Appellant. Exhibit A though not signed by the Appellant, bears an endorsement at the signature column that ???already signed by the accused in Hausa version???. This much as borne out on the record, the learned Appellant???s Counsel admits. ???Furthermore and of paramount significance is the fact that the Exhibit A1 before being translated into Exhibit A, was taken together with the Appellant to a superior Police Officer, Abdulkadir Nura, and read to the hearing of the Appellant who admitted its contents before being endorsed by the superior Police Officer. Appellant has not stated that what is in Exhibit A1 is different from the contents of Exhibit A. ??? 20