ENTERPRISES LTD v MONTEREY MARITIME CORPORATION & ANOR (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 417) 1, per Iguh, JSC at page 27; ISAAC OMOREGBE v DANIEL LAWANI (1980) 3 – 4 SC 108 at 177; ODULAJA v HADDAD (1973) 11 SC 357; NIGERIAN MARITIME SERVICES LTD. v AFOLABI (1978) 2 SC 79 at 81; and ADEL BOSHALI v ALLIED COMMERCIAL EXPORTERS LTD. (1961) 2 SC 322. He argued that the evidence of PW1, the eye witness in this matter is enough to convict the Defendant, relying on the case of DR. SEGUN ODUNEYE v STATE (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 697) 311. On whether the Prosecution has proved the two counts beyond reasonable doubt, learned Counsel cited the case of SILAS SULE v THE STATE (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33, where the essential elements for the proof of conspiracy were stated. He argued that the evidence led in this case shows that the Defendant with others now at large had their meeting point where they plan their criminal activities before they divide themselves into groups to carry out their operations. He referred the Court to the statement of the Defendant made to EFCC in Exhibits PW3A and PW3B and submitted that the Defendant in this case acted as the Herbalist who remains at the Shrine to collect money from the victims while other members would bring the victims to the shrine. Learned Counsel argued that conspiracy does not exist merely in the intention of two or more persons, but in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, and the actual agreement alone constitutes the offence as it is not necessary to prove that the act had in fact been carried out. He cited OBIAKOR v THE STATE (2002) 36 WRN 1 at 10; 9