the ingredients of the offence have not been proved. He relied on the case of ADELUMOLA V THE STATE, (1988) 1 NWLR (pt73) page 693. On counts 3 and 4 against the 2nd Defendant at paragraphs 3.10 – 3.14 of the final written address of the Defendants, learned Counsel submitted to the effect that from the testimony of DW2, which is uncontroverted and uncontradicted that DW2 only accompanied one Solomon Adukwu to the office of PW1 and that DW2 was not in the knowledge of the purported file, exhibit 3 as PW1 and one Solomon Adakwu were speaking in Hausa and that DW2 does not understand Hausa. Learned Counsel then submitted at paragraph 3.11 of his address that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients under Section 25(1) (a) of the Act against the 2nd Defendant. He stated further that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution that the 2nd Defendant personated the staff of Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and he urged me to hold that no allegation of impersonation against the 2nd Defendant has been proved. On count 5 for the offence of criminal conspiracy, the learned Counsel at paragraphs 3.15 and 3.16 of his address submitted that the prosecution must prove an agreement to do an illegal 26