This is because according to him, throughout the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no where any of the witnesses testified to the fact that the 1st Defendant conspired with the 2nd Defendant to commit any offence, nor have their evidence shown or disclose how the unpaid salaries of 22 staff of Sokoto South Local Government Education Authority, or any part thereof was converted by the 1st Defendant for the purpose of conferring any corrupt or unfair advantage upon himself. In his response, the Prosecuting Counsel submitted that for the offence of Conspiracy contrary to Section 26(1)(c) and punishable under Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, it is trite law that the gist of the offence of Conspiracy is the meeting of the minds of the Conspirators as the offence is hardly capable of direct proof. The offence of Conspiracy according to him, is a matter of inference from certain Criminal acts of the parties concerned done in pursuance of an apparent common intention. - Njovens V. State (1998) 1 ACLR 224 at 263-264. - Oyediran V. FRN (2003)3 ACLR 513 at 525. He submitted that inference can be drawn from the evidence of the four (4) prosecution witnesses that the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant connive with each other to withheld the salaries of teaches between the months of March to June, 2017 for their own benefit and urge the Court to hold that the prosecution has proved the offence of Criminal Conspiracy against the 1st and 2nd Defendants beyond reasonable doubt and convict them as charged. The 1st Defendant being Accountant Salary who prepare schedule of payment of salaries of teachers and keep record of same, not a signatory to the Account of Sokoto South Local 14