In view of what I said above the issue No.1 and the grounds of appeal upon which it was predicated have been resolved against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. Under issue No.2 the appellant's argument is that the appellant was not validly arraigned before the trial court. According to him it was crystal clear that the charge was only read to him but was not explained. In law, it was argued, that for an arraignment to be valid the appellant (as an accused) must be brought to court and the charge must be read to him and explained in the language he understands - See Ogidi vs. State (2005) 21 NSCQR. The word "shall" in Section 187(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap.37 Laws of Katsina State 1991 which is in pari materia with Section 36(6)(a) and (e) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has received a judicial pronouncement to mean mandatory, compulsory and imperative command and it is inconsistent with a concept of discretion - See Ogidi vs. State (supra) pages 334. From the record, it is clear that the appellant speaks Hausa but whether or not an interpreter was provided for him is lacking in the record. This has cast doubt in the procedure adopted by the trial court in arraigning and convicting the appellant. The brief goes on that this has led to a miscarriage of justice, it is the fundamental right of the appellant to be provided with and assisted with interpreter if he cannot understand the language used at the trial of the offence - See Section 36(6)(a) and (c) of the 1999 Constitution. It is clear from the record of proceeding that the appellant speaks Hausa. The mandatory provision Section 36(6) supra was not observed by the trial court. We are urge to allow the appeal on this ground/issue. In the respondents brief under issue 2, it is submitted that in the absence of evidence to the contrary when the charge is read to an accused and he pleads and his plea was recorded by the court, there is raised a rebuttable presumption that the court was satisfied that the charge was explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court - See Solola vs. The State (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt.937) 460. It is further submitted that when any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisite of its validity were complied with- see Section 150(1) Evidence Act. Also the appellant had counsel during his trial at the trial court. Therefore the plea of the appellant was valid in law - Solola vs. State (supra), Amala vs. The State (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt.888) 520. Failure of the trial judge to record that the charge is explained to the appellant though a good practice but this failure will not render the trial a nullity - See Olabode vs. State (2009) 5 MJSC (Pt.11) 83 and Dibie v. The State (2007) NWLR (Pt.1038) 30.