Scribd
Upload
2 views

assignment note

Conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more individuals to commit an unlawful act or a lawful act through unlawful means, which can be evidenced through direct or circumstantial evidence. The offence is inchoate, meaning mere agreement suffices for prosecution, and it can exist even among individuals who have never met. Courts may infer conspiracy from the circumstances of the case, and there is no time limit for prosecuting conspiracy, even if the related substantive offence is statute barred.

Uploaded by

Gabriel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views

assignment note

Conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more individuals to commit an unlawful act or a lawful act through unlawful means, which can be evidenced through direct or circumstantial evidence. The offence is inchoate, meaning mere agreement suffices for prosecution, and it can exist even among individuals who have never met. Courts may infer conspiracy from the circumstances of the case, and there is no time limit for prosecuting conspiracy, even if the related substantive offence is statute barred.

Uploaded by

Gabriel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Meaning of conspiracy:

Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful
means and, in the latter case, demonstrating such agreement by some overt act towards execution of
the agreement by one or more parties thereto. See the case of Ogunleye v. IGP – CA/A/377C/2009
delivered on Thursday 24th day of April, 2012.

Nature of the offence of Conspiracy:

Conspiracy is inchoate not a substantive offence. The evidence of agreement constituting conspiracy may
be by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence deducible from the surrounding circumstances. See the
case of Ezede v. State (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 894) at 504-505, paras G-B.

In an offence of conspiracy, there must be evidence of an agreement between two or more accused
persons to do an act or a lawful act by unlawful means. See the case of Adeniji v. State (1992) 4 NWLR
(Pt. 234) pg. 248 at 263-264, paras H-A.

Where the evidence on record does not reveal any agreement on the p art of the accused persons, the
charge of conspiracy is not made out. See the case of Oladejo v. State (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 348) 101 at
127, paras. G-H.

The offence of conspiracy is embedded in the agreement or plot between the parties, it is rarely capable
of direct proof. This is an offence that is deduced from the act of the parties which is focused towards
the realization of their common or mutual criminal purpose. See the case of Njovens & Ors. v. The State
(1973) 5 SC 17.

Ingredients of Conspiracy:

The essential ingredient of the offence of conspiracy lie in the agreement to do an unlawful act which is
contrary to or forbidden by law and it does not matter whether or not the accused person had
knowledge of its unlawfulness. See the case Clark v. The State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 381.

The crime of conspiracy is usually hatched with utmost secrecy and the law recognizes the fact that in
such a situation, it might not always be easy to lead direct and distinct evidence to prove it. Thus, it is
always open to the trial judge to infer conspiracy from the facts of the case. See the case of Dr. Segun
Ogunye v. The State (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 697) 311.

In Daboh v. The State (1977) All NLR 146; (1977) 5 SC 122, Udo Udoma JSC stated:

“It may be stated that where persons are charged with criminal conspiracy , it is usually required that the
conspiracy as laid in the charge be proved and that the persons charged be so proved to have been
engaged in it. On the other hand, as it is not always easy to prove actual agreement, courts usually
consider it sufficient if it be established by evidence the circumstances from which the court would
consider it safe and reasonable to infer or presume the conspiracy”. See also the case of Silas Sule v. The
State (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33, Ikemson v. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455 at 467-468,
Balogun v. A.G. Ogun State (2002) 2 SCNJ 196 at 209.
The offence of conspiracy is separate, distinct and independent of the actual commission of the offence
to which conspiracy is related. Mere agreement to commit an offence is sufficient; its commission is not
necessary. See Balogun v. A.G. Ogun State (2002) 2 SCNJ 196 at 209; Ikemson v. The State (1989) 3 NWLR
(Pt. 110) 455 at 467-468.

The offence of conspiracy can exist between persons who in fact had never known or seen each other or
corresponded with each other. See R. v. Parnell 14 Cox. 508 at 515. In order to prove the offence of
conspiracy, it is not necessary that the accused person should have concocted the scheme, the subject
matter of the charge or that they originated or mooted it. Even in a situation where conspiracy is formed
and a person joins it later or afterwards, he is equally guilty with the original conspirator. See the case of
Gregory Godwin Daboh & Anor v. The State (1977) All NLR 46, (1977) 5 SC 122.

Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or to do a


legal act by illegal means. People who agree among themselves to embark on an illegal venture or to
achieve a legitimate end by an illegal means do not invite a witness or witnesses to attest to their
agreement.

Usually the facts surrounding the execution of intention expressed in the agreement will determine
whether those charged with the commission of crime acted individually or in pursuance of a prior
agreement to effect an unlawful purpose or to a lawful purpose by unlawful means. Bare agreement to
commit an offence suffices. While the actual commission of the offence is not a necessary ingredient of
the offence of conspiracy, the actual commission of the offence may show common intention formed
before it. See the case of Patrick Ikemson & Ors v. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455 at 477; Clark v.
The State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 381, Arinze v. The State (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 155) 158.

Proof of Conspiracy:

Conspiracy is a continuing offence; other persons may join an existing conspiracy and become parties to
it. So the conspiracy will continue to subsist as long as the parties to it agree. It comes to an end by
performance or abandonment of the act. In all cases of conspiracy, the court must be satisfied with
evidence of complicity of the accused person(s) in the offence. See the case of Adejobi & Anor. v. The
State (2011) 6-7 SC (Pt. 111) p. 65; Bright v. The State (2012) 1 SC (Pt.11) p. 47.

However, there is no time limit for the offence of conspiracy, even when the substantive offence has
become statute barred. See the case of Rex v. Simmonds (1967) 51 CRIM. APP. REP. 316

You might also like