"It is not necessary to prove that the conspirators were seen coming out from the same place at the same time. Conspirators need not know each other. They also need not have started the conspiracy at the same time. For a conspiracy started by some persons may be joined at a later stage or stages by others. The gist of the offence of conspiracy is the meeting of the mind of the conspirators. See R vs Mevick & Rebuff (1929) 21 CAR 94: Njovens & Ors vs The State (1973) NSCC 257.
It is therefore difficult to prove the offence of conspiracy by direct evidence. Conspiracy is a matter of inference from the criminal act of the parties concerned which act is done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose. It is therefore the duty of the Court in every case of criminal conspiracy to ascertain as best as it could the evidence of the complexity of any of those charged with the offence. See Daboh & Anor vs The State (1977) 5 SC 222: ERIM vs The State (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt.346) 535."
Per GALINJE, J.S.C. IN OLADEJO v. STATE CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44310(SC)
"To constitute an offence of conspiracy, the prosecution must prove:
- That there was agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done some illegal act or some act which is not illegal by illegal means.
- Where the agreement is other than an agreement to commit an offence, it must be proved that some act beside the agreement was done by one or more of the parties in furtherance of the agreement.
3.That each of the accused individually participated in the conspiracy."
Per GALINJE, J.S.C. IN OLADEJO v. STATE CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44310(SC)
