sufficient intelligence to satisfy his giving evidence and understands the duty of speaking the truth as prescribed by Section 183 of the Evidence Act". The Court was satisfied that P.w3 understood the meaning of giving evidence on oath. See page 32 lines 26-27 of the record. The law has for long been settled that the Constitutional right granted to an accused to have an interpreter could not be invoked on appeal by an Appellant who had been represented by Counsel at the trial as a ground for setting aside a conviction unless he claimed that right at the proper time and was denied of it. An accused must therefore claim his right to an interpreter at the time of his trial not after, for the first time an appeal. See ONYIA VS. THE STATE (2008) 36 N.S.C.Q.R page 1090 at 1125 per I.T Muhammad J.S.C. Appellant was represented by Counsel at the trial Court throughout the proceedings. It is for the Appellant or his Counsel to take the initiative of bringing this fact to the notice of the Court at the earliest opportunity or as soon as the situation has arisen. If he does not claim the right at the proper time, he may not be able to have a valid complaint afterwards for example an appeal. See DURWODE V. THE STATE (2000) 12 S.C Part 1 page 1 at 18 lines 10-20. In the result I take the view that the Appellant's contention in this regard is a non starter. See also OGBA V. THE STATE (1992) 2 N.W.L.R Part 222 at 164 or (1992) 2 S.C.N.J Part 1 page 106 at 195 paras B-D per Kariby-Whyte J.5.c. The Counsel did not raise any objection. It is too late in the day to now cry wolf. Issue three is hereby resolved against the Appellant. Having resolved all the issues against the Appellant for the reasons given in this Judgment, I am therefore of the view that the guilt of the Appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt upon the evidence led at his trial. Accordingly this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The Appellant's conviction is hereby affirmed as well as the sentence imposed. ISTIFANUS THOMAS, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in advance the lead judgment of my learned brother Modupe Fasanmi, JCA, just delivered. I entirely agree that the brutal murder of his own wife committed by the appellant was corroborated by the evidence of PW2, a father in-law to whom the deceased clearly informed him that it was the Appellant who shot her with the gun that caused her death. PW3 being a child of tender age was first put to test to ascertain his truthfulness of speaking in evidence and the child passed the test of truthfulness. The evidence of PW3 destroyed the Appellant's false defence of alibi. Based on the corroborative evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3, it is well established that the gun shot was fired by the appellant and that fire caused the death of the deceased. Based on this