With respect to the offence of importation of the 165 Kilograms of Cocaine, Counsel submitted that the prosecution also proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel submitted that the Respondent was required to prove the following ingredients. a. That there was importation of cocaine into Nigeria. b. That the Appellant was a party to the importation of the Cocaine. c. That the substance imported is proved to be cocaine. On (a), counsel submitted that the trial court found at page 349 of the record of Proceedings that the said container no. MSCU 1287231 containing the 165 Kilograms of Cocaine was imported into the country from Bolivia, South America. The Country of origin is Bolivia and the destination of the container is Nigeria. Counsel argued that once the container landed at Tin can Port, Lagos, it has been imported into Nigeria. He referred to Exhibit W (the bill of lading). On (b), that the Appellant was a party to the importation of the v Cocaine, counsel referred to the findings of the learned trial judge in his judgment at page 349 of the Record of Proceedings: “The activities of the 1st and 2nd accused persons are indicative of the involvement of a syndicate. The two accused persons though they claim not to know each other, I am satisfied that they conspired with persons now at large to import the 165 Kilograms of Cocaine in container no. MSCU 1287231 from Bolivia, South America" Counsel also referred to the findings of the trial judge at page 348 of the Record of proceedings: "That the 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 (PWIO) 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 nos. MSCU 3668026 and MSCU 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". Counsel submitted that all these findings were sufficient to prove that the Appellant was party to the importation of the cocaine. On (c), that the substance imported is proved to be Cocaine, counsel submitted that in his evidence PW4 gave a graphic account of how the powdery substance recovered from the tiles which was the mode of concealment was field tested and