the Appellant gave to PW 10, the Respondent did not produce any other evidence linking the Appellant to the container and the cocaine purportedly found therein. Both the Appellant and the 2nd accused in their defence claimed that save on the day of their arrest on the 21st of January 2011; they had never met before and did not know each other. The Appellant admitted that he gave the bill of lading to PW 10. PW 10 gave the said bill of lading to one Audu Ismail a clearing agent. Audu Ismail contacted the 2nd accused, Gabriel Ugwu and gave him the instruction to begin the process of clearing the said container. It is pertinent to mention that after the search of the second container, allegedly not claimed by anybody, and where 110 kg of cocaine was found, NDLEA now did what they should have done in the first place made inquiry through the shipping line and got information from the cargo manifest of the container linking two companies to the containers. The companies are Efcrisam Group Company Ltd and Ellisbonav Nig Ltd. Through enquiries at these companies the 2nd accused Gabrielle Ugwu and other suspects including the appellant were arrested. During the trial, the Respondent called 11 witnesses. The appellant and his co-accused each testified on his own behalf and called no other witness. In a considered judgment delivered by Okechukwu Okeke J. on 17/5/13, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Naturally, unhappy with the judgment, the Appellant appealed by Notice of appeal dated 29/11/13 filed on 6/12/13 at pages 351 - 357 of the Record of Appeal containing seven grounds of appeal. As is customary in this court, the parties filed and exchanged briefs of arguments. The appellant's brief was settled by Mobolaji Olanipekun Sowole Esq while the Respondent's brief was settled by J. N. Sunday Esq. Director, Prosecution & Legal Services (NDLEA) and, Obiageri Iwuchukwu. From the seven grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant in his brief distilled three issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the offence of importation of 165 kilograms of cocaine was proved against the Appellant in line with provisions of the enabling law. Ground 2. 2. Whether the offence of conspiracy to import 165 kilograms of cocaine was proved against the Appellant in line with provisions of the enabling law. Grounds 1, 4 & 5. 3. Whether the learned trial Judge properly directed himself as to 1 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. Grounds 3,6 & 7. The Respondent's counsel on their part formulated two issues for determination as follows: