provision of the Evidence Act that the evidence of Mohammed Abubakar was not brought because it would not have been favourable to the prosecution’s case and as such this has greatly prejudiced the prosecution’s case. On the charge of conspiracy under Section 8(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Decree No. 13 of 1995, it is submitted that the offence requires the same modus of proof as required under the Penal Code and the prosecution has not been able to show any form of conspiracy. With respect to Count 27, it is the submission that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the various elements constituting the broad charges. It is the submission that the Report in Exhibits R, S, T and T1 did not in any way indict the accused, though the said report cannot in law be relied upon and the probative value to be ascribed to the report remains very low. It is submitted that it would be very wrong to convict an accused person on speculative finding or suspicious because for a conclusion to be grounded it must be based on credible or reasonable inference to be drawn from the totality of evidence including the defence made out by the accused. See AMADI v STATE (1998) 8 NWLR Pt 314 at 644. It is submitted that proof of any crime must be beyond reasonable doubt. See EDAMINE v STATE (1996) 3 NWLR Pt 438. 14