LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Conspiracy — Proof of Conspiracy — Circumstantial Evidence Requirements
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Conspiracy is rarely proved by direct evidence but by circumstantial evidence and inference from proved acts; care must be taken to keep the issues clear when persons are charged with conspiracy and with the substantive offence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kalgo, JSC, in Obiakor & Anor v. State (2002) NLC-3272001(SC) at p. 8; Paras A–B.
"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. Because of the nature of the offence of conspiracy, it is rarely or seldom proved by direct evidence but by circumstantial evidence and inference from certain proved acts. But where persons are charged with conspiracy and with offence committed in pursuance of it as in the instant case, care must be taken in considering the evidence relevant to conspiracy and keep the several issues clear."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Conspiracy is the agreement to commit an illegal act. The agreement alone constitutes the offence; the act need not be committed. Direct evidence of conspiracy is rare; proof is usually by circumstantial evidence and inference. When both conspiracy and substantive offences are charged, the court must keep the evidence for each distinct. The principle ensures that the jury or judge does not confuse the issues. The prosecution must prove the meeting of minds. The inference of conspiracy must be compelling. The rule applies to all conspiracy charges. The court must be careful not to infer conspiracy from mere association. The principle protects against wrongful conviction.