The facts upon which the three (3) count charges were framed against the Defendants, are as contained in the charges earlier reproduced in this Judgment. As to the offence of Conspiracy punishable under Section 97(1) of the Penal Code Law Cap 104 Laws of Sokoto State 1996, and which is the first count charge against the Defendants, it is trite law that in a charge of Criminal Conspiracy, all that is necessary is for the prosecution to led evidence of agreement to commit an offence, and in the absence of an agreement, then evidence of some community efforts on the part of all the accused persons aimed at committing a crime, and once either of these two (2) is established by the prosecution before the trial court, it will be safe to convict for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy. - Salawu V. State (2016) 12 NCC 1. - Obiakor V. State (2002) 10 NWLR pt 776 p 612. - Abacha V. State (2002) 11 NWLR pt 779 p 437. - Patrick Njovens V. State (1973) 8 SC p 17 at 263264. The evidence of PW4 are Babangida Aliyu shows that the Defendants on 20/12/2018 went to Sama road, Sokoto on a motorcycle and met PW4 and others sitting where their mother one Fatima Umar was frying soya beans and demanded them to release handsets after threatening to kill whoever refused to comply. That as a result of threat, one of them in person of Mas’ud gave them his white Vivo handset. The witness described the scenario in the following piece of evidence:“The 3rd Defendant dropped from the motorcycle with an intention to cut Fahad. So seeing that, I rushed to save Page 13 of 27