therefore urged me to resolve issue three in favour of the 1st Defendant. Finally, learned Counsel urged me to dismiss the whole charge, discharge and acquit the 1st Defendant. The learned Counsel for the 2nd Defendant also filed his final written address on behalf of the 2nd Defendant on 7th February, 2018. He distilled a sole issue for determination as follows: “Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offences of criminal conspiracy and official corruption against the 2nd Defendant to warrant his conviction.” In arguing the sole issue for determination the learned Counsel for the 2nd Defendant states that the 2nd Defendant is standing trial bordering on the offences of conspiracy and using his office as a public officer to confer unfair advantage. At paragraphs 3.02 – 3.04 of the final written address of the 2nd Defendant, learned Counsel submitted that by our adversarial criminal system of justice, the law places the burden of proving the guilt of the Defendant on the prosecution in order to secure conviction and sentencing of the Defendant by the Court. He relied on section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act and the cases of UGURU V STATE, (2002) 10 NSCQR (pt 1) page 37 at 54 paragraph C, STATE V AJIE, (2000) 3 NSCQR page 53 at 65 paragraph G. In the instant case, learned Counsel submitted at paragraphs 3.08 – 3.13 of the final written address on the offence of criminal conspiracy to confer corrupt advantage that the prosecution must prove the ingredients of conspiracy as follows: (a) An agreement between the Accused persons to do or cause to be done some illegal acts or some acts which is not illegal by illegal means; and (b) Each of the conspiracy. Accused persons participated in the He relied on Section 96 of the Penal Code, Notes on the Penal Code Law (Cap 89 Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963) Fourth 24