PW1 for sale. As a circle towards the attainment of the set objective, the 2nd Defendant called the 3rd Defendant who now showed to PWS 1 and 3 including the 2nd Defendant, the plots ED3 and ED4. PW1 in his evidence clearly stated that Augustine James, the 2nd Defendant told him that he would verify the genuineness of the Plots and that on his return in September, 2009 from London, United Kingdom, the 2nd Defendant confirmed to him that exhibits 1 and 2 were genuine. However, by the testimony of PW2, it is confirmed that exhibits 1 and 2 were not genuine. Secondly neither the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Defendants testified as to how exhibits 1 and 2 were procured because by the evidence of PW2, he testified as follows: “After our verification we discovered that the plots were not allocated by the office and we reply the Economic and Financial Crime Commission accordingly.” Thus, by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits tendered before the Court, mens rea can be drawn from the actus reus of the Defendants to infer conspiracy. In the case of USMAN KAZA V THE STATE, (2008) LPELR 1683, the Supreme Court held: “In the offence of Conspiracy, the mens rea is not easy to locate as it is mostly, if not invariably, buried in secrecy. And so, the actus reus of the offence which is easier to locate can draw the mens rea to the open, and make it possible for the Court to find inculpatory evidence.” Further, the Supreme Court held: “A Conspiracy is complete if there are acts on the part of an accused person which lead the trial court to conclusion that he and others were engaged in accomplishing a common object or objective.” 28