diversion and criminal misappropriation of public funds to the tune of N18,000,000,000.00 (Eighteen Billion Naira) by the Commission. By the testimony of PW1, exhibit 3 and its contents and exhibits 6, 6(a), 7, 7(a), the prosecution has established the requirement of the last ingredient of the offence of impersonation contrary to Section 132 of the Penal Code. Thus, in the circumstance, I hold the view that counts 2 and 4 of the charge sheet for the offence of impersonation contrary to Section 132 of the Penal Code applicable in the Federal Capital Territory, the prosecution has proved with credible evidence the ingredients of the offence against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt and I so hold. On the final count charge i.e. for the offence of criminal conspiracy contrary to Section 26 (1) (c) and punishable under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000. As rightly submitted at paragraph 3.15 of the final written address of the Defendants’ Counsel, the prosecution has the onus to prove against the conspirators: (1) An agreement to do an illegal act; (2) To carry out a lawful act by unlawful means. In other words, criminal conspiracy has been defined as follows: - 42