humble view is an emphatic no! But the learned trial judge in his judgment at page 348 of the Record of appeal answered the question in the affirmative. His view: "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's statement dated 22nd January 2011 the 1st accused stated that he gave bills of lading for containers no's 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. The 2nd accused in his statement dated 23fd January 2011 (Exhibit JI) stated that nobody asked him to go to computer to produce Efcrisam's letter heading and ID card. That he did not tell Audu Ismail about faking of the ID card and letter heading. That the sum of N5, 000 given to him by Audu Ismail was for his feeding and transport 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.” There is nothing in the evidence set out above by the trial judge to justify his conclusion that there was a conspiracy. All the above acts do not supply the element of the meeting of the mind between the appellant and the 2nd accused. There was no direct or indirect connection of the appellant and the 2nd accused in the above established acts. As submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant, the Respondent did not adduce any evidence to show that the appellant and the 2nd accused knew each other or had any communication concerning the importation of the cocaine. A meeting of their minds to carry out the illegal act cannot also be deduced from their respective acts. The Respondent had seized the phones of the appellant and the 2nd accused and could have obtained from their service providers their call records in proof of communication between the two, if any. The evidence before the court was that the bill of lading was given to the 2nd accused by Audu Ismail. There is no evidence whatsoever that the appellant and the 2nd accused planned the forgery of the documents of Efcrisam Group. There is evidence that money passed from Audu Ismail to the 2nd accused for the actions he took. The prosecution did not call Audu Ismail to give evidence. 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, Efcrisam Group was the consignee of the cargo. The owner of Efcrisam Group Mr. Kayode Fashagba