CONSPIRACY

• Date: 24 January 2019

(1) "Conspiracy as an offence is nowhere defined in the Criminal Code (which is in force in the Southern States) but since the common law is in force in Nigeria the word must bear the same meaning as in England. It means, under the common law, an agreement of two or more persons to do an act, which it is an offence to agree to do. The very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced if lawful, is punishable if it is for a criminal object or the use of criminal means; (see Archbold 37th Ed. para. 4051). In short, it is the agreement to do an act which it is an offence to agree to do which constitutes the offence of conspiracy under the Criminal Code." - Per Fatai Williams, J.S.C. in Olushegun Haruna & Ors. v. The State Suit No. S.C. 11/1972; (1972) 7 N.S.C.C. 550 at 559; (1972) 8/9 S.C. 174 at 200 - 201.

(2) "Conspiracy as an offence is the agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. The actual agreement alone constitutes the offence and it is not necessary to prove that the act has in fact been committed." - Per Kalgo, J.S.C. in Obiakor v. State Suit No. S.C. 327/2001; (2002) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 776) 612 at 628.

(3) "Conspiracy is an offence consisting in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by an unlawful means. It is sometimes not necessary that there is an express agreement but the fact and circumstances of the offence may make the Court to conclude that the conspiracy to commit an offence can be deduced inferentially or circumstantially." - Per Pats-Acholonu, J.C.A. in Ibrahim v. State Suit No. CA/L/179/90; (1995) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 381) 35 at 44.

(4) "Conspiracy simply means the meeting of two or more minds to carry out an unlawful purpose or to carry out a lawful purpose in an unlawful way. In effect, the purpose of the meeting of two or more minds is to commit an offence. While the law does not require the physical meeting of the minds in a pre-determined or known place, as the offence of conspiracy could be committed by written communication, the prosecution must establish that the criminal minds really met to hatch the crime." - Per Tobi, J.C.A. in Okeke v. State Suit No. CA/E/92/98; (1999) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 590) 246 at 265 - 266.

(5) "Legally conspiracy simply means the meeting of two or more minds to carry out an unlawful purpose or to carry out a lawful purpose in an unlawful way. In effect, the purpose of the meeting of the two or more minds is to commit an offence. See Gbadamosi and Others v. The State (1991) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 196) 182. While the law does not require the physical meeting of the minds in a predetermined or known place, as the offence of conspiracy could be committed by written communication, the prosecution must establish that the criminal minds really met somewhere to hatch a crime. And for this purpose, the mere fact that the accused person happened to work in the same office does not ipso facto give rise to the offence of conspiracy. In the instant case, apart from the evidence that the appellant and the 1st accused person worked together in the same office and dealt with the same subject matter which gave rise to the commission of the offences, there is no evidence to find him guilty of conspiracy." - Per Tobi J.C.A. in Shodiya v. State Suit No. CA/L/148/88; (1992) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.230) 457 at 471.

(6) "The gist of the offence of conspiracy lies not in the doing of the act or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed but in the forming of the agreement between the parties." - Per Tobi, J.C.A. in Okeke v. State Suit No. C/E/92/98; (1999) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 590) 246 at 265.

(7) "When two or more persons agree to commit a crime, they are guilty of conspiracy whether the crime is committed or not, and though in the circumstances of the case, it would be impossible to commit it. See R. v. Whitechurch 24 Q.B.D. 420. In other words, a conspiracy in law consists of agreeing or acting in concert to achieve an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means." - Per Kalgo J.C.A. in Shodiya v.State Suit No. CA/L/148/88; (1992) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 230) 457 at 471.

(8) "Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition defines conspiracy as a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. Combination is defined by the same dictionary as the union or association of two or more persons for the attainment of some common end. Union or association can only be formed through agreement of members. In Com. v. Dyer 243 Massachusetts Reports 472, it was held that a crime of conspiracy is distinct from the crime contemplated by the conspiracy. The gist of the offence of conspiracy therefore lies not in the doing of the act or the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. The external or overt act of the crime of conspiracy is the concert by which mutual consent to a common purpose is exchanged. See Majekodunmi v The Queen (1952) 14 W.A.C.A. 64; Nwanko v. FRN (2003) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 809) 1 at 32 paragraphs C- E." - Per Galinje, J.C.A. in Usufu v. State Suit No. CA/L/81A/03; (2007) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1020) 94 at 124.

(9) "Conspiracy is the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. Unless two or more persons are found to have combined, there can be no conviction for conspiracy. The offence cannot exist without the consent of two or more persons (not being husband and wife) and their agreement is an advancement of the intention which each has conceived in his mind which then passes from a secret intention to the overt act or mutual consultation and agreement. See Mulcahy v. R. L.N. 3 H.L. P. 328 proof of the existence of a conspiracy is generally a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties accused done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them R. v. Meyvick and Rabuff 21 Cr. p. P. 94-99; Haruna v. State (1972) All N.L.R. 735, (1972) 8-9 S.C. 172; Balogun v. A.-G., Ogun State (2002) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 763) 512 at 532." - Per Edozie, J.C.A. in Nwankwo v. F.R.N. Suit No. CA/C/151/99, (2003) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 809) 1 at 37.

(10) "I shall start by saying that conspiracy as an offence is nowhere defined in the Criminal Code. It is therefore necessary to draw guidance from the common law. Under it, it is an agreement of two or more person to do an act which it is an offence to agree to do. The very plot is an act itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced in law, is punishable where it is for criminal object or the use of criminal means. The actus reus of each and every conspirator must be referrable and very often the only proof of the criminal agreement which is termed conspiracy. In other words, conspiracy is established if it is shown that the criminal design alleged is common to all the suspects. Proof of how they connected with or among themselves is not necessary. Indeed, the conspirators need not know each other. They need not have started the conspiracy at the same time. It is sufficient that even though the conspiracy had been started and some persons joined at a later stage. The bottom line of the offence is the meeting of the minds of the conspirators. Since it is difficult offence to prove directly inference from the certain criminal acts of parties concerned in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose will suffice see Daboh & Anor. v. The State (1977) 5 SC 197. Perhaps I should further say that in a conspiracy trial, evidence of what one accused says in the absence of the other conspirators is admissible against such others on the basis that, if they are all conspirators, what one of them says in furtherance of the conspiracy would be admissible evidence against them, even though it might have been said in the absence of the other conspirators - of course, this statement, of law, will be an exception to the Hearsay Rule - that was the decision in R. v. Luberg & Ors. 19 C.A.R. 133 which was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Mumuni & Ors. v. The State (1975) 1 All N.L.R. (Pt.1) 294. When a charge of conspiracy is tried along with other substantive charges, it has come to be accepted practice that rules as to admissibility of evidence are generally relaxed. However, let it be said that the prosecution always has as its primary duty to lead distinct evidence of the existence of the conspiracy and what part each of the conspirators played." - Per Aderemi, J.C.A. (as he then was) in Nwosu v. State Suit No. CA/L/115/2000; (2004) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 897) 466 at 486 - 487.

(11) "In Ubierho v. State (2005) 20 W.R.N. 111 at 125, (2005) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 919) 644 at 658 Katsina-Alu J.S.C. defined conspiracy thus: "This Court has held that when two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence. See Muonwem v. The Queen (1963) 1 All N.L.R. 95 (1963) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 172. Ofor v.The Queen (1955) 15 W.A.C.A. 4." - Per Udom-Azogu, J.C.A. in Aje v. State Suit No. CA/I/101/04; (2006) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 982) 345 at 359 - 360.

(12) "Reverting to the charge of conspiracy, and simply put, it is constituted by the agreement formed by two or more minds with the intention to do what is agreed. And where what...