with provisions of the enabling law and whether the learned trial Judge properly directed himself as to the burden and standard of proof having regard to the nature of the issues placed before him and made a proper evaluation of the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence. In count two, the appellant was charged with importing without lawful authority 165 kilograms of cocaine from Bolivia South America on or about the 27th day of January, 2011 using container no MSCU 1287231 contrary to Section 11(a) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act Cap 30 Laws of the Federation 2004. To succeed the prosecution must prove each of the following beyond reasonable doubt: a. That there was importation of 165 kg of cocaine into Nigeria on or about the 27th day of January, 2011. b. That the substance imported is proved to be cocaine. c. That the Appellant was a party to the importation of the Cocaine. What amounts to proof beyond reasonable doubt? I am bound to start with the locus classicus on the point, the case of Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All E.R. p. 372' where Lord Denning J (as he then was) observed "That proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted of fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence "of course it is possible, but not in the least probable'1 the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt but nothing short of that will suffice." I will also refer to the authorities cited by the Respondent in its brief of argument: "Proof beyond reasonable doubt must attain a high degree of probability. In the case of Ahmed v. State (2003) 3 ACLR, 145 Ayoola JSC (as he then was) said "It is equally now firmly established that proof beyond reasonable doubt means no more than what it says and need not attain the degree of absolute certainty, although it must attain a high degree of probability. That is what proof beyond reasonable doubt is all about in our criminal jurisprudence" (Emphasis added) Also, in the case of Audu v. State, 7 NWLR (Part 820) 516 at 554, this Court held that "I will now deal briefly with issue No. 1 of the Respondent. It is true that by virtue of the provisions of Section 138 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, but as held in the case of Akalezi V. The State (1993) 2 NWLR, Part 273, 1 at 12, 1993 2 SCNJ 19 and restated in the case of Nasiru v. The State 1999, 2 NWLR, Part 589,87,1999,1