That”. . . .the Joint Task Force then made an inquiry through the shipping line and information from the cargo manifest of the container. I led a team of officers to Efcrisam Group Company Limited, Egbeda Lagos where the owner of the company Kayode Fashagba was invited to the Joint Task office and interrogated by us.” Counsel submitted that by the evidence of PW9 the JTF knew how to reach those connected with the containers whether consignors or Nigerian agents of the owners; and that if JTF had contacted Efcrisam Groups Company Limited upon the arrival of the containers, an ambush would have been laid for those who would show up to clear the containers and upon their showing up, they would have been taken to the containers, all the seals would have been broken in their presence and a search of the said containers would have been carried out. Counsel brazenly contended that the JTF actually opened all the three containers and having found nothing therein planted cocaine in the last two containers and resealed same for the eventual mock opening of the said containers. Counsel on this issue: finally submitted that although the damaging trail of evidence of the opening and search of the containers in the absence of the owners was provided by the Respondent's witnesses; the learned trial Judge ignored the adverse nature of the said evidence on the case presented by the Respondent. He opined that if the trial Judge had given due consideration to the said evidence, he would have resolved the issue of the importation of cocaine in favour of the Appellant and the 2nd accused. In view of the above submissions, counsel opined that the offence of importation of 165 kilograms of cocaine was not proved against the Appellant. Counsel submitted that the Respondent failed to establish by credible evidence that the cocaine claimed to have been found in the containers were actually contained in the said containers at the point of entry into Nigeria and not that they were planted in the said containers. Counsel argued that if on receipt of the information that the containers had drugs in them the JTF had waited for the would be owners of the container or those who would show up to clear the containers and upon their coming forward, the seals of the containers were broken and the containers opened in their presence and the drugs found therein, then the Respondent would have had a case against the Appellant and the 2nd accused. Counsel finally submitted that the Respondent failed to prove the offence of importation of 165 kilograms of cocaine against the Appellant and urged this Court to so hold. On issue 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 learned counsel submitted that the crime of conspiracy could not have been committed when there was no proof that there was cocaine in the container upon its arrival-in Nigeria as earlier submitted under issue one. Counsel argued that the cocaine found in the last two containers could only have been planted in the said containers by the Respondent and the JTF in their obvious desperation to rope in