Further the evidence of DWs 4 and 5 that the assessment of Right of Occupancy Rent and Fees attached to exhibit 5 was made on a Sunday; by the evidence of DW5, PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 and exhibits 5, 7(a), 7(b) and 22, it is clear that Plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III was duly allocated to Fine Trust Academy. And DW5 categorically stated under cross examination that the assessment fee as evidenced by exhibit 13 has been paid into Abuja Municipal Area Council coffers. He further testified that before assessment of fees, there must have been an allocation. In the instant case, there was an allocation to Fine Trust Academy and Fine Trust Academy has paid the assessment fees and Abuja Municipal Area Council issued it with a receipt, exhibit 13. Thus, whether the assessment of Right of Occupancy was done on a Sunday or not by Abuja Municipal Area Council, Fine Trust Academy is not the architect of the document and therefore cannot be held liable for inserting wrong date. Thus, as I said in the course of reviewing the testimonies of the witnesses called by the 1st Defendant, the actus reus of the 1st and 2nd Defendants towards the allocation of Plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III in favour of Pax Education Resource, an unregistered legal entity as at the year 2000, it is a clear demonstration of collusion by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to deprive Fine Trust Academy of Plot SSI Jikwoyi Extension III upon which mens rea can be drawn in the open. In other words as stated in the case of KAZA V STATE (Supra) that for the offence of Conspiracy to be proved mens rea is not easy to locate as it is mostly buried in secrecy and the actus reus of the offence is easier to locate and then mens rea can be drawn. In the instant case by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits referred to above, I hold the view that the prosecution has proved the offence of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt against the 1st and 2nd Defendants and I so hold. Accordingly, the 1st and 2nd Defendants are hereby convicted of the offence as contained on count 1 as charged. On Count two (2) of the charge contrary to Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000, I had 53