the Appellant. Counsel relying on Akinwunmi v The State (1987) NWLR (Pt 52) 608 submitted that the Respondent failed to establish the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy. On issue 3: 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 made a proper approach to the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, counsel relying on The State v. Usman (2005) 5 ACLR 45 at 49 ratio 39 submitted that the burden of proof in a criminal matter rests squarely on the prosecution and the prosecution must not only prove that a crime has been committed by the accused person, but must also prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel submitted that the Respondent did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He opined that the evidence which the prosecution presented before the Court was simply that the 2nd accused was caught with forged documents with which he intended to use to -clear two containers; that the Appellant gave two bills of lading to PW 10 in order that he may assist him in clearing the said containers and nothing more. Counsel submitted that most of the Respondent’s witnesses who testified during the trial, testified either to the fact that they kept the drugs in safe custody or that they oversaw the taking of the statements of DWI and DW2. Counsel submitted that the Respondent's star witness was PW9, who is a Staff Officer in charge of investigation in the NDLEA. His schedule of duties included coordinating surveillances, liaising with their international counterparts; coordinating some operations and investigation of cases. He investigated and gave his evidence which in the main was that he received intelligence report about three suspicious containers coming from Bolivia and suspected to contain drugs. PW9 gave evidence as to how the Appellant and the 2nd accused person were arrested on the 21st of January 2011 followed by the arrest of Ibrahim Maidurumi, PW 10 and the clearing agent Audu Ismail. The summary of the said evidence as presented by the Respondent purportedly pointed to the fact that the container with bill of lading No. MSCU1287321 which purportedly contained the 165kg of cocaine was believed to belong to the Appellant who was being assisted by the 2nd accused to clear the said container. Counsel submitted that these facts were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel submitted that there were crucial issues during the trial which the learned trial Judge ought to have made definite findings of fact on. These are: 1. Why the container in issue was opened by the Respondent and the JTF in contravention of the procedure for opening suspected containers said to contain drugs; 2. Whether in reality, there was drug in the container; 3. Whether the Appellant and the 2nd accused indeed conspired to import the drugs;