In volunteering to testify, he waived immunity. State ex rel. Hemmings v. Coleman, 137 Fla. 80, 187 So. 793; McKown v. State, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 54; State v. Grayson, Fla. 1951, 55 So.2d 554. The proceedings had at the first appearance before the solicitor on May 9, 1955, have been examined and show that relator was under oath and that he waived immunity. His rights were explained to him and it is shown that his appearance before the solicitor was voluntary.

Consequently, were we to follow the dissent's interpretation of Section 961 and abrogate any requirement for compulsion, we would place a construction upon this immunity statute wholly unique in American jurisprudence.E.g., State ex rel. Raines v. Grayson, 55 So.2d 554, 556 (Fla. 1951) (per curiam) (before a witness could be immunized from prosecution under a statute that allowed immunity for individuals giving testimony in gambling investigations, "there must be compulsion, coercion or an offer of immunity in return for his testimony"); State v. Panagoulis, 253 Md. 699, 253 A.2d 877, 882 (1969) ("It is quite clear that the statutes equate immunity with compulsion, but it is equally clear that a witness, although compellable, gains no immunity unless he is compelled."); State v. Hennessey, 195 Or. 355, 245 P.2d 875, 883 (1952)

We ordered issuance of the rule because it initially appeared that the relator's point was well taken. It now appears that the rule should be discharged for the reason that the full record reveals no semblance of the essential element of compulsion which is required to afford immunity under the aforesaid § 932.29. State ex rel. Raines v. Grayson (Fla. 1951), 55 So.2d 554; McKown v. State (Fla. 1951), 54 So.2d 54; and State ex rel. Johnson v. MacMillan (Fla.App.2d 1967), 194 So.2d 627. The gravamen of the statute is to provide an investigatory weapon to law enforcement which they are not obligated to utilize.