was arrested by NDLEA officials and taken to their office where he made a statement. He was not charged along with the Appellant and the 2nd accused and was not even called as a witness to testify. The fact that the 2nd accused forged the documents of Efcrisam Group to enable him clear the container does not prove conclusively or lead irresistibly to the inference that he worked in concert with the appellant to import cocaine into Nigeria; especially as PW11 the MD of Ellisbanov Nig Ltd stated in his evidence that he the case of State v. Ogbubunjo (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 698) 576 @ Pp 590 D-G. 607 F-G. the Supreme Court observed: "In order for circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, such evidence must not only be cogent, complete and unequivocal but compelling and lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused and no one else is the offender; it must leave no ground for reasonable doubt and must be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. There must be no other co-existing circumstance which can weaken such inference. [Lori v. State (1980) 5SC 5; State v. Uzor (1972) 1NMLR 208]" There are certainly in the instant case other possible explanations for the actions of the 2nd accused other than a plan to import cocaine into Nigeria. He may have acted because he was paid to forge the documents or to facilitate the quick clearance of the container in order to earn his fees. In his first statement after arrest on 21/1/11 at pages 155 - 158 of the printed record, he stated that he was given a total sum of N50, 000.00 by Audu Ismail for the processing of the documents. He also said that when he went to Efcrisam Group at no 7 Olusesan Ogunro Street Okunola Egbeda Lagos he found it was a residential home without any company signboard with the name Efcrisam Group, he informed Audu Ismail who told him to wait that he would contact the person that gave him the documents. After waiting for two days and time was passing, he then went to computer centre at Apapa to do the fake documents. There is nothing in the evidence led to show any connection between the 2nd accused and any other person in the entire transaction/other than Audu Ismail. It is thus rather surprising that Ismail - and Kayode Fashagba were not called to testify. However, the fact remains that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the Respondent did not lead to the logical conclusion that there was a conspiracy between the appellant and the 2nd accused to import cocaine from Bolivia into Nigeria. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that it is the duty of the court in every case of conspiracy to ascertain as best as it could the evidence of the complicity of any of those charged with the offence of conspiracy. No evidence of complicity was adduced in the instant case and the learned trial judge erred in convicting the appellant of conspiring with 2nd accused and others at Large to import 165 Kilograms of Cocaine from Bolivia, South America using container no. MSCU 1287231 I will take the appellants issues 1 & 3 together, that is whether the offence of importation of 165 kilograms of cocaine was proved against the Appellant in line