4. Whether there was a meeting of minds to commit an offence; 5. Why the Respondent made no effort to trace the telephone number that the Appellant provided the police; and 6. Whether the Appellant and the 2nd accused were guilty of any crime whatsoever. Counsel submitted that there was ample evidence provided by the Appellant that the actual owners of the container were known and could have been traced. But for reasons best known to the prosecution, it chose to ignore the leads it had as to the actual owner of the container. Counsel submitted that the lead in question was the telephone number of the boy who works for the owner which the owner gave the Appellant and which the Appellant passed on to the Task Force. Further, that the Appellant cooperated with the NDLEA and made effort to lead the Task Force to the actual owner - Chief Okey - but the Task Force bungled the opportunity. Counsel opined that the learned trial Judge failed to consider the defence of the Appellant to wit: that he was procured by one Chief Okey to clear the container on his behalf. Counsel submitted that the learned trial judge appeared to have been swayed by his conclusion that the appellant and the 2nd accused were liars but the law is that an accused cannot be convicted of an offence the prosecution has failed to prove simply because he lied. Counsel cited the cases of Okpere v. The State (1971) NMLR 145 and Philip Omoaodo v The State (1981) 5SC 5 page 22. Relying on the cases of Alatise v State (2013) ALL FWLR (PT.686) PG. 552 at [567. paras. A-E]; Odogwu v The State (supra): and R.v. Teper (1952) A C. 480 at 489. learned counsel submitted that the circumstantial evidence relied on by the learned trial judge to convict the appellant was not so cogent, complete and unequivocal as to lead to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant and the 2nd accused conspired to import 165 Kilograms of cocaine from Bolivia. Counsel submitted that while it is trite that an appellate Court would not disturb or reverse the findings of fact made by a trial court, which had the opportunity of hearing and watching the demeanour of the witnesses, where the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence or make proper use of the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses at the trial or where it is shown that the trial court's findings are perverse and that a miscarriage of justice has been occasioned as a result, the appellate Court will interfere. Adimora v Ajufo (1983) 3NWLR (Pt. 80) 1 Ebba v Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372 at page 185. See also Williams v The State (1998) 4 SCNJ 202 at 222. Ojo V Governor of Oyo State (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt 95) and Elohor v Osayade (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 249) 524. Counsel submitted that the Respondent failed to prove each of the counts against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and urged us to allow the appeal and to discharge and acquit the Appellant on the two counts.