some specific offences - conspiracy

Yes, he will. It is settled though that the testimony and statement of a defendant is not binding on his co-defendant. The act of a co-conspirator done in furtherance of a criminal scheme is the act of the other co-conspirators and they all can be held criminally liable for such acts. The critical stage of the offence of conspiracy is the reaching or forging of an Agreement. Anybody that participated in the agreement is a co-conspirator, and act of one is the act of all. ADELODUN V. F.R.N (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 912) 726; NJOVENS V. STATE (1973) 5 SC 17; (1973) NSCC 230. AYINDE V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; YUSUF V. FRN (2017) HELAR; FRN V. UMEH(2019) HELAR

No, mere intention is not enough, there must be a meeting of the minds of the co-conspirators and that must be proved before the charge for conspiracy can succeed. The takeoff point is the point of AGREEMENT. Usually record or facts of that meeting point at which the conspirators agreed to commit the unlawful act is hard to find. Proving that there was a conspiracy is often indicated by the commission of the unlawful act. This is what the prosecution must show, and so mere intention is not enough. OKEJERE V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 866) 386; OYELEYE V. STATE (2013) LPELR 20693.

Yes. It is the law that conspiracy may exist between persons who have never seen each other. Indeed, in order to convict persons of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the defendants concerned should ever have met in any place to concoct the scheme, the subject matter of the charge. Even if a conspiracy is formed and a person joins in a later date, he is usually termed guilty like the original conspirators because taking part in the act is the clearest indication of agreement with the others to do it. OKEJERE V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 866) 386 CA; DABOR V. STATE (1977) 5 SC 197.

Since the main crux of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement of attaining an unlawful objective or a lawful objective through an unlawful means, it is usually difficult to prove through direct evidence. The most easy and available means is through CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. It is usually inferred from the acts of the co-conspirators or from the proof of the commission of the substantive offence. ADELODUN V. F.R.N (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 912) 726 CA; NJOVENS V. STATE (1973) 5 SC 17; (1973) NSCC 230; STATE V. SALAWU (2011) LPELR- 8252 SC; (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 614) 1; LAWSON V. STATE (1975) 4 SC 115; AMACHREE V. NIGERIAN ARMY (2003) 3 NWLR (PT.802) 256. OFORDIKE v. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; AYINDE V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR

No, the crime of conspiracy is completely committed the moment two or more persons agreed that they will do, at once or at some future time, certain unlawful things. It is not necessary in order to complete the offence that any one thing should be done beyond the agreement. Once the prosecution can prove that there was an agreement, the charge of conspiracy can succeed. The commission of the offence itself is a different offence and so would framed into a different charge. OKEJERE V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 866) 386; ERIM V. STATE (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 346) 522.

In common law, the offence of conspiracy is defined as an agreement of two or more persons to do or carry out an unlawful act, or to do or carry out a lawful act in an unlawful manner. Under the penal code, criminal conspiracy is defined to mean: i. When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done a. An illegal act; or b. An act which is not illegal by illegal means. SECTION 96 (1) PENAL CODE.

The offence of conspiracy has been defined as an agreement of two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. The spectrum can also be broadened to include an agreement to perpetrate a lawful act by unlawful means. To ground a conviction for conspiracy, two or more persons must be found to have been in agreement to perpetrate the unlawful act, or a lawful one by unlawful means. Conspiracy therefore consists of not merely in the intention of two or more but it is the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act, by an unlawful means. So, as long as a design rest in mere intention, it is not indictable.

When two or more persons agree to carry it (the intention) into effect, 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, becomes punishable if for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means. In effect, to establish the offence of conspiracy, there must exist a common criminal design or agreement by two or more persons to commit a criminal act or omit to do an act the failure to do of which is criminal or a lawful act in a criminal manner. See OKEJERE V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT.866) 386 CA; OYELEYE V. STATE (2013) LPELR 20693; OSETOLA V. STATE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT.649) 1020; SALAWU V. STATE (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 594) 35; DABOR V. STATE (1977) 5 SC 197; ERIM V. STATE (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 346) 522. YUSUF V. FRN (2017) HELAR; FRN V. UMEH (2019) HELAR; OFORDIKE v. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; AYINDE V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR.

By the provisions of both the Criminal Act and the Penal Code, the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy that the prosecution will need to establish are as follows:

a. An 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.

b. Where the agreement is one other than an agreement to commit an offence, that some other related illegal act besides the legal one agreed upon, was done by one or more of the parties in the agreement.

c. Specifically, that each of the accused persons individually participated in the conspiracy; that is participated in reaching the agreement to do that offensive act.

AKINBAMI V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 897) 2018 AT P.2033, PARAS. D-G; ABACHA V. F.R.N. (2006) 4 NWLR (PT. 970) 239; AITUNA V. STATE (2006) 10 NWLR (PT. 989) 452; WAZIRI V. STATE (1997) 3 NWLR (PT.416) 689; ABOYOMI V. THE STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (Pt. 886) 1964 @ 2006; AYINDE V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR

The law is well settled to the effect that he who asserts must prove. And in a criminal trial it is the prosecution who asserts. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the offence of conspiracy and this burden must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt. See SECTION 135 OF THE EVIDENE ACT, ADELODUN V. F.R.N (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 912) 726; ALAKE V. STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT.205) 567; OKASHETU V. STATE (2016) ALL FWLR (PT.861) 1262. OFORDIKE v. THE STATE (2019) HELAR

Yes, conspiracy would be committed by persons who had been alive at the period of the commission of the crime. The criminal act of one of the conspirators, whether dead or alive, can rightly be linked to the actions of the other conspirators. The fact of the death of a co-conspirator or the fact of his still being at large does not vitiate the offence of conspiracy. In the matter of trial of the offence of conspiracy, the actus reus of one of the conspirators can be referred to and linked with the actions of the other conspirators. Conspiracy is one offence where it is the actus reus that reveals the mens rea. See OKEJERE V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 866) 386 CA; NJOVENS V. THE STATE (1998) LPCLR 224 AT 263. OFORDIKE v. THE STATE (2019) HELAR