of criminal conspiracy as it always be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of each case. - Salawu V. State {2016} 12NCC1 - Obiakor V. State {2002} 10NWLR pt 776 p 612 - Abacha V. State {2002} 11NWLR pt 779 p 437 - Patrick Njovens V. State {1973} 8 SC 17 at 263 The prosecution submitted that the offence of criminal conspiracy was proved through the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and exhibits A, A1, B, B1, C, C1, D and D1which are the Hausa and English translated versions of the defendants’ statements. However in paragraph 2 of page 7 of the of the prosecutor’s adopted written address, the prosecuting counsel submitted that though what they tendered and admitted were the photocopies of the defendants’ statements because original got lost due to series of transfers of this case to three {3} different courts including this court, and submitted that they relied on the provisions of sections 89(c) and 90 of the Evidence Act, 2011 for their admissibility. The said sections provide as follows:“89. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when:(C) the original has been destroyed or lost and in the latter case, all possible search has been made for it; 90(1) The secondary evidence admissible in respect of the original documents referred to in the several paragraphs of section 89, is as follows:(a) In paragraphs (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document, is admissible.” Page 10 of 18