conspiracy exist, in the case of USMAN KAZA V THE STATE , (2008) LPELR 1683, the Supreme Court held further:“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.” Now that the offence of conspiracy is not easily ascertained or proved by any form of agreement and neither can the mens rea be easily located because of the utmost secrecy, by inferential or circumstantial surrounding facts and circumstance, the roles, actions steps taken in doing things by the conspirators would ultimately brought to the open the mens rea. In the instant case, I have perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses nos 1, 2 and 3 as well as the exhibits admitted in evidence in this case. I have equally gone through the testimonies of DWs1 ,2 and 3 as well as the exhibits tendered in evidence on behalf of the 2nd Defendant as DW2. Firstly, by the evidence of PWs2 and 3, the purported houses at Asokoro and Maitama which the 1st Defendant informed PW1 and the nominal complainant, Mrs. Sonia that they were put up by Ad-Hoc Committee for sale was not true and they do not exist. And the picture presented to PW1 and the nominal complainant by the first Defendant was that the houses exist and someone with capacity to pay for the houses was required. The proof of capacity to pay pursuant to the 1st Defendant’s information was what led PW1 and the nominal complainant to issue two bank drafts of N20,000,000.00 each in favour of Ad-Hoc committee for sale of Federal Government of Nigeria Houses and the 1st Defendant promised to deliver letters of allocation within two weeks. The 1st Defendant also demanded the sum of N20,000,000.00 for her services and that the amount be paid in favour of the 5th Defendant’s account. PW1 testified that even after three months of payment for the Houses, the 1st Defendant could not deliver the letters of allocation and it was after the pressure by PW1 on the 1st Defendant that the 1st Defendant introduced the 2nd Defendant as a member of Ad-hoc Committee 32