conspiracy. See paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 of the final written address of the 1st Defendant’s Counsel and paragraphs 3.153.29 of the final written address of the 2nd Defendant’s Counsel to the effect that the prosecution failed to prove actus reus and mens rea that the Defendants conspired to manipulate the record of the allocation letter of SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III. He referred me to the answers elicited during cross examination of PWS2 and 3 to the effect that the witnesses failed to say the alleged cohorts, hence the investigation of PW3 was evidently inconclusive raising reasonable doubt as to the existence of any agreement. The position of the law is that it is from the acts or manner the accused persons were doing things towards actualizing a common end it can be inferred or deduced that they did so in furtherance of their conspiratorial agreement to commit the alleged offence. See OBIAKOR V THE STATE, (2002) 10 NNLR (pt776) page 612, BABATUNDE ADELANI V THE STATE (2018) 5 NWLR (pt1611) page 18 paragraphs D-E IFEANYI- CHUKWU AKWUOBI V THE STATE, (2017) 2 NWLR (pt1550) page 421 at 444 and BABANGIDA SULE V FRN (2018) LPELR 45284, (CA) Abuja Judicial Division. Further, the proof of conspiracy is generally a matter of plausible inference. Hence in a charge of conspiracy, proof of the actual agreement which is an essential element or ingredient of the crime is not always easy to come by. Thus, the fact that there was no positive evidence of any agreement between the accused persons to commit the offence is not enough to hold that the prosecution cannot establish charge of conspiracy. See CALEB OJO V FRN (2008) LPELR 5155 (CA) Abuja Judicial Division, OYAKHIRE V THE STATE(2006)15 NELR (pt1001) page 157. Also Niki Tobi JSC (as he then was and of blessed memory) in KAZA V STATE (2008) LPELR 1683 (SC) said “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.” 43