cartons of ceramic tiles; exhibit F is the analyzed sample; exhibit E is the drug analysis report confirming the substance to be cocaine. All the exhibits were admitted in evidence without any objection from the appellant and his co-accused. The above witnesses were also not cross-examined or challenged as to the procedure adopted in the analysis of the substance. There is consequently proof beyond reasonable doubt that the substance imported was cocaine (c) That the Appellant was a party to the importation of the cocaine. The question here is what evidence did the Respondent adduce in support of their contention that the appellant was a party to the importation of the cocaine? There is evidence that the appellant gave two bills of lading to PW10 to assist him in clearing the two containers. There is also evidence that the appellant gave Maidurumi PW10 N300, 000.00 for clearing the containers. PW10 in his evidence confirmed all of the above. The Respondent at page 19 of their brief of argument referred to the findings of the trial judge at page 348 of the printed records: "That evidence before the Court is that the 1st accused handed over the Bill of Lading (Exhibit W) for container MSCU 1287231 to Ibrahim Audu Maidurumi (PW10) to assist him in the clearing of the said container. In Exhibit M the 1st Accused Statement dated 22nd January 2011, the 1st accused stated that he gave the bills of lading for containers 1287231 to Ibrahim and that they were given to him by one Chief Oke. The Bill of lading for container no MSCU 1287231 was given to Ibrahim by the 1st accused personally". The Respondent had submitted that the above findings were sufficient to prove that the Appellant was party to the importation of the cocaine. But the appellant's claim is that Chief Oke gave him the bills of lading to clear the containers for him and also gave him the sum of N300, 000.00 as deposit which he had given to PW10. He was however unable to produce Chief Oke. PW9, Katambi Ndirmbula a staff of the Joint Task Force Unit (JTF) of NDLEA conf irmed in his evidence in chief at page 288 of the printed record that the appellant took them to a beer parlour where he said he meets with Chief Oke but Chief Oke failed to turn up. The prosecution should have done more to either locate Chief Oke or establish that the name was fictitious arid nonexistent. PW11 Eshiet Elihu the Managing Director of Ellisbanov Nig: Ltd in his evidence in chief stated that BG Logistics Bolivia were the shippers of the container MSCU 1287321. He had also told the Court that from the information on the bill of lading, Efcrism Group was the consignee of the cargo. PW11 testified that they made contact with Efcrisam Group whose name appeared on the House bill of lading as the consignee and that it was on the strength of the contact that the 2nd accused Ugwu was sent to their office. He further testified that the House bill of lading is a trade document between the exporter of the goods referred to as the shipper and the buyer referred to as the consignee. It is evident then that Efcrisam Group played a vital role in the entire transaction as the