ISSUE ONE At paragraphs 3.08 – 3.18 of the final written address of the prosecution, learned prosecuting Counsel submitted to the effect that the Defendants are standing trial for the first two counts of the 4th amended charge for conspiracy conferring corrupt advantage upon the relations and associates of the 1st Defendant contrary to Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000. He submitted that in line with Sections 135 and 139 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) and the case of ADEGBENRO V THE STATE (2004) 1 SCNJ 65, the burden of proof squarely rests with the prosecution and the burden does not shift. He stated that the proof is beyond reasonable doubt and relied on the cases of AGBOOLA V THE STATE, (2013) 5 SC1 and IGABALE V STATE, (2006) 6 NWLR (pt 975) page 100. The learned prosecuting Counsel submitted that criminal conspiracy is not defined by the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act but he refers me to section 96 of the Penal Code and also relied on the cases of BABARINDE V STATE, (2013) 12 SC (pt II) page 27 at 39 – 40 where the Apex Court defined Criminal Conspiracy as follows: “Criminal Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done: (a) An illegal act, or (b) An act which is not illegal by illegal means such an agreement is called “Conspiracy”. The prosecution submitted that offence of conspiracy as when two people are charged together, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence of conspiracy. He relied on the cases of EBENEZE AJE V THE STATE, (2006) 8 NWLR (pt 982) page 345 pages 359 – 360, UBIERHO V THE STATE, (2014) 8 NWLR (pt 1408) page 111, ODUNEYE V STATE, (2001) 2 NWLR (pt 697) page 311 and NJOVENS V THE STATE, (1973) 5 SC 17. 13