On the contention of the appellant that whether or not the interpreter was provided for the appellant is not shown from the record it is the submission of the respondent that the denial of the right to an interpreter is proved by credible evidence rather than on mere suspicion arising from failure to keep a full record of proceeding by the trial court. Thus evidence has to be demonstrated positively and affirmatively that there was no interpreter provided or then - See Madu vs. The State (1997) 1 SCNJ 44 at 54. Indeed there is no evidence on record that the Appellant was misled as to the charge or any subsequent proceeding. In fact the learned counsel for the appellant was also his counsel at the trial and there was nowhere in the record that the counsel took any objection to any irregularity. It is submitted in the respondents brief that it is the duty of counsel to raise any irregularity in the conduct of proceedings - See Onyegbu vs. State (1995) 4 SCNJ 275 at 289. We are finally urged to hold that there was no miscarriage of justice occasioned as a result of the violation of any principle of law or procedure and that the Appellant was properly arraigned before the trial court. To resolve this 2nd issue, it is pertinent to point out that though the appellant is or was a teacher (see page 21 of the record) at Tsintsiya Primary School, Mashi, he told the court that he could speak only Hausa and not English. Even when the charge was read to the accused/appellant (at page 6 of the record) it was not in Hausa and there was no interpreter provided to translate the English reading of the court to Hausa. This, I agree with the appellant has offended the provision of Section 187(1) of the criminal Procedure code (cap 37) Laws of Katsina State and Section 36(6)(a) and (e) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The requirement of a valid arraignment is that they are mandatory and not directory and must therefore be strictly complied with in all criminal trials. See the cases of Dibie v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1038) 30 at 61 and 62; Solola vs. State (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt.937) 460 at 482 - 483, Kajubo vs. State (1988) 1 NWLR (pt.73) 721, Kalu v. State (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt.583) 531. The requirements are as follows: (a) the accused must be placed before the court unfettered unless the court shall see the Cause otherwise to order; (b) the charge or information must be read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court by registrar or other officer of the court; (c) the charge or information must be read and explained to the accused in the language he understands;