"lt is the duty of the Court in every case of conspiracy to ascertain as best as it could the evidence of the complicity of any of those charged with that offence." The offence of conspiracy is the meeting of mind of the confirmations, and it is hardly capable of direct proof. lt is only complete by the agreement to do the act or omission complained about. So, conspiracy is a matter of inference from certain criminal acts of the parties concerned done in pursuance of an apparent crucial purpose in common between them. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the offence of conspiracy, by providing materials before the court which will assist the Court to infer from the circumstances, if indeed, there was an agreement between the parties to connote an offence common to them. The Case of David Omotola & Ors. V. The state, supra becomes relevant. This Court states that there is nothing from the facts and circumstances surrounding this case that this Court can infer the complicity of the Defendant with any other person in the commission of any offence whatsoever. The offence of conspiracy crumbles, since there is nothing to so infer. That is my finding and, I so hold. On lssue No. 3 ln respect of lssued No. 3, this Court states that it has read the statement made by the Defendant. ln the said statement, the Defendant did not state that he stole the said money or that he conspired with others to steal any sum of money. From the statement, the Defendant stated that he left the keys at the ATIM gallery inside the Bank before he closed for work on the day of the incident. It is obvious that circumstantial evidence comes to play" The case of tMallam Zakari Ahmed V. The State (2001) 2 ACLR 131 at 147 thus: "Through circumstantial evidence is admissible in criminal cases to prove the guilty of an accused, yet such evidence must be narrowly examined by the court if only because evidence of this kind may be fabricated to cast suspicion on another, 'lt is necessary before drawing the inference of the accused is swift from circumstances to be sore that there are no co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference - Okoro Meriagbe V. The State (1977) 2 SC 89" The fact that the Defendant was not stated that he left the keys at the ATIVI gallery in his statement, it is not enough. The prosecution is still duty bound to 18