It is further submitted that where all the essential ingredients of the offences charged have been proved by the prosecution, as done in this matter, the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt. See NWATURUOCHA v STATE (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt 697) 397 at 415 – 416. It is the submission that to prove the offence of conspiracy, the prosecution must establish the following ingredients: (a) That there was an agreement between two or more persons. (b) That the agreement was to do or cause to do an illegal act. (c) Or to do a legal act by illegal means. In the instant case from the evidence of PW3, PW4, PW5 and Exhibits H1, I, K, L and M, it is clear that there was an agreement between the accused person and one Ojeyinka Omotosho (now at large) to do an illegal act that is to commit the offences the accused person is being charged. It is trite law that a free and voluntary confession by an accused person is sufficient to ground a conviction. See EMEKA v STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt 734) 666 at 682 Paras E – F. In the instant case the confessional statement of the accused are corroborated by Exhibits I and M the statement of the coconspirator. Court is urged to hold that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused person with the offence in Counts 1, 6 and 23 dealing with conspiracy. For the charges for 16