MUSA V. STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 207
ON DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
Criminal conspiracy means when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act; or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is called a criminal conspiracy.
[Omotola v. State (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148; Lucky v. State (2024) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1944) 461; Jato v. State (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1674) 317; Busari v. State (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1452) 343 referred to.]
(Pp. 254-255, paras. H-B)
ON ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
The essential ingredient of the offence of conspiracy lies in the agreement to do an unlawful act. The bottom line of the offence is the meeting of the minds of the conspirators to commit an offence, and meeting of the minds need not be physical.
The court recognizes the difficulty which the prosecution may encounter in proving by direct evidence an agreement hatched in secrecy. Thus, where there is no direct evidence, the offence is often proved by inference from the attitude of the accused person as well as from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.
[Yau v. State (2022) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1863) 601; Busari v. State (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1452) 343; Nwosu v. State (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1452) 343; State v. Gwangwan (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1477) 600 referred to.]
(P. 255, paras. E-H)
Per UMAR, J.S.C. at page 264, paras. C-F:
“It is clear that since it has been established that the trial by ordeal led to the death of the deceased, then the death sentence pronounced on the appellant should be affirmed.
This already establishes that the appellant is guilty of the offence of culpable homicide, and having considered the record and evidence of PW4, PW5, and PW6, it is without any doubt that the appellant did not carry out the activities alone. She was in cahoots with others to torture the deceased to death; therefore, conspiracy is irrefutably inferred.
Conclusively, the oral evidence of PW1, PW4, PW5, and PW6 corroborates exhibit C and C1 (the retracted confessional statement of the appellant), and the lower courts were right to rely on them. It is therefore my considered view that this issue be resolved against the appellant.”
MUSA V. STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 207
ON PROOF OF CONSPIRACY
For the prosecution to establish that there was conspiracy to commit an offence, it must prove the following:
(a) That there was an agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act or an act which, though not illegal, was done by illegal means;
(b) Where the agreement is other than an agreement to commit an offence, that some acts besides the agreement were done by one or more of the parties in furtherance of the agreement;
(c) That each of the accused persons individually participated in the conspiracy.
There need not be an express agreement before a common intention can be shown in an offence of conspiracy.
[Ismail v. F.R.N. (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1707) 85 (SC); Agugua v. State (2017) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1573) 254; Osuagwu v. State (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1347) 36; Kolawole v. State (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1460) 134 referred to.]
(P. 255, paras. B-E)