defends extra-judicial statement Exhibit E and E1 are the Hausa and English translated versions of the 3rd defendant’s extra-judicial statement. The defence also tendered two {2} exhibits through PW4 and PW5 which were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits F and G respectively. The two {2} exhibits are the extrajudicial statements of PW4 and PW5 respectively. By the provisions of section 96 (1) of the penal code law Cap. 104 Laws of Sokoto state 1996, when two or more persons agree to do or course to be done:(a) An illegal act; or (b) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is called a criminal conspiracy. - Salawu V. State {2016} 12 NCC 1 - Abacha V. State {2002} 11 NWLR pt 779 p 437 - Obiakor V. State {2002} 10 NWLR pt 776 p 612 By paragraphs 4.5 – 4.6 of their adopted written address, counsel to the 1st and 2nd defendants submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case clearly shows that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the 1st defendants and 2nd defendant and that even though the evidence of PW3 Hajiya Maryam Muhammad has established the ingredients of the offence of abduction, he argued that she did not identified any of the defendants as among her abductors. He further argued that although PW4 and PW5 testified to the fact that they identified 1st and 2nd defendants at the scene of crime, they testified under cross examination that it 20