(d) The above are the ingredients of the offences which the prosecution must prove against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt. And to prove the ingredients of the offence or guilt of the two Defendants, such manner of proof has been rightly captured in the case of AGBOOLA V THE STATE (supra) where the Supreme Court held:- “It is trite law that in criminal trials the guilt of the Accused person for the commission of an offence could be established by any of the following:(a) The confessional statement of the Accused; (b) Circumstantial evidence; (c) Evidence of an eye witness. See also SOPAKIRI BA IGBIKIS V THE STATE, (2017) LPELR 41667 (SC) SUNDAY UDOR V STATE, (2014) LPELR 23064 (SC) and BITO SEMAKA V THE STATE, (2018) LPELR 44001 (CA) Arising from the above, for the offence of conspiracy, how can the prosecution prove its ingredients? In the case of MRS. MUBO IKOTUN V FRN & ANOR (2017) LPELR 43396, the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division held:“The offence of conspiracy is hardly proved by direct evidence. Conspirators normally shroud their criminal activities with secrecy. Evidence of conspiracy is ordinarily drawn from inferential or circumstantial sources showing the criminal acts of the parties concerned done in pursuance of a criminal enterprise in common between the parties so the offence of conspiracy by inference can be proved by circumstantial or inferential evidence vide NJOVENS & ORS V THE STATE (1973) NWLR (pt 76) at 96-97.” And it is also the law that proof of conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances of the case. And once the prosecution succeeds in proving the existence of conspiracy, evidence against one conspirator is admissible against the other. See SANI GWANDU V FRN, (2014) LPELR 23992 (CA) Kaduna Judicial Division and MUSA YARO V STATE, (2008) 3 NCC page 250 at 262. 32