“Whether in the instant case, the prosecution has profer credible evidence and prove the essential elements of the six counts amended charge against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt.” As a preamble, it is the law that in criminal cases, the standard of proof is placed on the prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of an offence beyond reasonable doubt against the Defendant(s). This is in line with the provision of Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended). See also AKPA V THE STATE, (2007) 2 NWLR (pt 1019) page 500 at 519 – 520, UDO V STATE, (2006) ALL FWLR (pt 337) page 456 at 457. It is also the law that the prosecution can prove the guilt of a Defendant either: (a) The confessional statement of the Accused person; (b) Circumstantial evidence; or (c) Evidence of eye witnesses of the crime. See the cases of BITO SEMAKA V THE STATE, (2018) LPELR 44001 (CA), SOPAKIRIBA IGBIKIS V THE STATE, (2017) LPELR 41667 (SC) and OGEDENGBE V THE STATE, (2014) LPELR 23065 (SC). Having said the above, the coast is now clear to consider the essential ingredients of each count offence as contained in the amended charge whether the prosecution has adduced evidence to prove same against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt. The first count is for the offence of Conspiracy by obtaining money under false pretence contrary to Section 8 (a) and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006. Firstly, Section 8 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act provides: “A person who: 23