Seriously serious.

.

I have seen it. Whatever it is Saraki must appear 2rw.

kk

saintopus:
I think so many things will happen between now and 2019 but none of them look like Saraki ever going to jail.

Beside was it not this same guy most APC fans were hailing when he defected from the PDP?
What happened to the alliance?

What gives you the impression that he won't jailed?

these people r nt serious jorrr? I hope saraki has seen this.....but wait o, y the guy cum run leave him house? d winch wey pursue am strong wella.Lol

This is a new cct

Dnt tell me dox clowns case is under pending Am only intrested in Saraki case dos 1nse can go to hail!
BTW! If i hear say Saraki is not guilty den Dix Change is Fake! i must Deport to TOGO

Abeg leave case, NA SARAKI MAKE CCT POPULAR! I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE CASES UP THERE

omenka:
Kenking, u dey hot today oo!!

Chai!! See d way work dey deny me juicy threads today!!

Wetin man go do

Hmmm

What will make this one different is buhari's body odour

my classmate's mother-in-law makes $78 /hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for seven months but last month her check was $16983 just working on the internet for a few hours. see here now.....
=======>>>>>>> w­­w­w.o­n­l­i­n­e-j­­o­b­s­9­­­.c­o­­m

CCB has been fooling arround and April fooling gullible Nigerians for some decades now!

Too much noise with no conviction!

Clowns.

Shows that this case is a witch hunt.

mlanreh:
Saraki won't be jailed simple

I don't know when invitation and jail sentence become synonymous in your own dictionary.

ndcide:
Shows that this case is a witch hunt.

It means we now have a serious president who is relatively less corrupt compared to the past PDP presidents.

ndcide:
Shows that this case is a witch hunt.

Don't mind them

People here are blinded with hate

eleyi gidi gan

Delible:
Ayeeeeee ooooooooooooooo .No single conviction till date. Bunch of Jokers.

Now I know CCT is toothless bull dog .They cannot send Saraki to Jail.

what could they have done under a pdp corrupt govt.

atbu1983:


It means we now have a serious president who is relatively less corrupt compared to the past PDP presidents.

Our president didn't refuse corrupt campaign money before now.

The country na full scam, Looooooool. It is probing era

sanc2s:
EFCC's probing the Senate President's wife. The Senate'S probing t/ EFCC Chairman. The CCT's probing the Senate President. EFCC probing CCT. Smh for Nigeria

One thing is common here "the charge to read 90 days in conformity to 1999(1) as ammended." and that is the end of the case. This why we produce more thieves per day. Which way forward in NIGERIA?

I was expecting a list of dose cases, not ds dictionary

Keneking:
1. GOMBE STATE

FRN v. Adamu S. Lily & 1 OR CCT/GB/01/10
The case was called; the first accused person was deceased while the second accused person was present. Consequent on the death of the 1st accused person his name was struck out of the charge. The 2nd accused person on the other hand presented his original acknowledgement slip and was acquitted on that basis.

FRN v. Shehu Kanar & 3 ORS CCT/GB/02/10
The case was called the 1st and 4th accused persons were absent. Therefore bench warrant was issued against them. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted and the amended charge was read to them and they pleaded not guilty to the charge. The case could not go on because our witness from Gombe State office was not in court.
The case was adjourned to 5th march 2013

FRN v. Musa Toma & 1 OR CCT/GB/03/10
The case was called the 2nd accused person was absent because he was not served. The Tribunal ordered that efforts should be made to serve him.
The 1st accused was present therefore the prosecution moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted and the amended charge was read to the accused person and he pleaded not guilty to the charge. The case could not go on because our witness from Gombe State office was not in court.
The case was adjourned to 5th march 2013

FRN v. Jae Danture CCT/GB/04/10
The case was called and the accused person was absent because he is deceased. The Tribunal struck out the charge against the accused person.

FRN v. Joshua Danmallam CCT/GB/05/10
The case was called the accused was present in court. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted and the amended charge was read to him and he pleaded not guilty to the charge. In his defence he presented his original acknowledgement slip. The Tribunal therefore acquitted the accused person.

FRN v. Moses Naomi Lasar & 5 ORS CCT/GB/06/10
The case was called and all the accused persons were present and represented by J.A. Ogwuche. The defence cousel raised an objection orally on the grounds that the charge offends paragraph 1 of the 3rd schedule to CCB & T Act and section 221 of the CPC. The Tribunal ordered him to file a motion to argue his objection.
The case was adjourned to 6th march 2013

FRN v. Alhaji Danjuma Babayo CCT/GB/07/10
The case was called the accused person was absent because he was not served. The case was adjourned to 6th march 2013 in order that service be effected on the accused person.


2. ADAMAWA STATE

FRN v. Ibrahim N. Adamu & 3 ORS CCT/AD/01/09
The case was called but the all the accused persons were absent. Consequent on the above, the matter was adjourned to 7th march 2013 to enable service on the accused persons.

FRN v. Eli Gamaliel & 6 ORS CCT/AD/02/09
The case was called all the accused persons were present except the 4th and 7th accused persons. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted and the amended charge was read to them and they pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution opened its case and led one witness, i.e., Mr Sufyan Ahmad in evidence and tendered one document (receipt slip) which was marked exhibit AD1.
The 4th accused person opened his defence and stated that he received form ccb1, filled and returned but was not issued with acknowledgement slip.
The 7th accused person on the other hand opened his defence and stated that he returned the form after he returned from a trip with the governor of Adamawa state and was issued with a temporary acknowledgement slip.
The Tribunal there upon invited the prosecution witness to the witness stand and requested for the declarant ID register. In the register the Tribunal discovered the names of the accused person but no date of return of the forms was recorded. The tribunal asked the prosecution witness to explain. He stated that the 7th accused person returned the form one year later but could not explain why the date of return was not recorded in the register.
At this juncture the Tribunal, without affording the prosecution the opportunity to make its final address acquitted the accused persons on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

FRN v. Jonathan Thomas CCT/AD/03/09
The case was called and the accused present. The defence Counsel Milkman Esq. applied for an adjournment to enable him file a preliminary objection. Consequent on the above the matter was adjourned to 7th march 2013.

FRN v. Mohammad Babayola CCT/AD/04/09
The case was called the accused was present but requested the Tribunal grant him an opportunity to consult and hire the services of a Counsel. Consequent on the above the Tribunal adjourned the case to 7th march 2013.

28TH NOVEMBER 2013

3. TARABA STATE

FRN v. Silas Jafta & 9 ORS CCT/TR/01/08
The case was called the 1st and 10th accused persons were present while others were absent because they were not served. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused persons and urged the Tribunal to excuse the personal appearance of the accused persons that were absent. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted. The defence declared their intention to object to the charge against the accused person on the grounds that the charge offends paragraph 1 of the 3rd schedule to CCB & T Act and section 221 of the CPC. The Tribunal ordered him to file a motion to argue his objection. Consequently the matter was adjourned to 3rd April 2013.

FRN v. Sunday Albert & 9 ORS CCT/TR/02/08
The case was called the 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th and 9th accused persons were present while others were absent because they were not served. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused persons and urged the Tribunal to excuse the personal appearance of the accused persons that were absent. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted.
The defence declared their intention to object to the charge against the accused person on the grounds that the charge offends paragraph 1 of the 3rd schedule to CCB & T Act and section 221 of the CPC. The Tribunal ordered him to file a motion to argue his objection.
Consequently the matter was adjourned to 3rd April 2013.

FRN v. Sani Bamalum &1 OR CCT/TR/03/08
The case was called and the accused persons were absent because they were not served. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused persons and urged the Tribunal to excuse the personal appearance of the accused persons. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted.
Consequent on their absence, the matter was adjourned to 3rd April 2013 to enable service to be effected on them.

FRN v. Saidu Yusuf & 3 ORS CCT/TR/04/08
The case was called three of the accused persons were present one was absent because he could not be traced. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused persons and urged the Tribunal to excuse the personal appearance of the accused person that was absent. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted. The defence declared their intention to object to the charge against the accused person on the grounds that the charge offends paragraph 1 of the 3rd schedule to CCB & T Act and section 221 of the CPC. The Tribunal ordered him to file a motion to argue his objection.
Consequently the matter was adjourned to 3rd April 2013.

FRN v. Alh. Mohammed Isa Lau & 6 ORS CCT/TR/05/08
The case was called and all the accused persons were absent because they were not served. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused persons and urged the Tribunal to excuse the personal appearance of the accused persons. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted.
Consequent on their absence, the matter was adjourned to 7th May 2013 to enable service to be effected on them. The defence counsel undertook to assist the Tribunal in effecting the service on the accused persons.

FRN v. Danladi Chindo &1 OR CCT/TR/06/08
The case was called and the accused persons were absent because they were not served. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused persons and urged the Tribunal to excuse the personal appearance of the accused persons. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted.
Consequent on their absence, the matter was adjourned to 7th May 2013 to enable service to be effected on them. The defence counsel undertook to assist the Tribunal in effecting the service on the accused persons.

FRN v. David W. Yusuf & 1 OR CCT/TR/07/08
The case was called all the accused persons were absent. The officers of the Taraba state office drew the attention of the prosecution to the fact that the 1st accused person is a staff of Ussa local Government as not Ibbi as contained in the charge. The prosecution therefore applied to the Tribunal for a date to enable it files a corrected charge but the Tribunal struck out the charge stating that the prosecution should prefer a fresh charge against the accused persons separately.

FRN v. Yunusa Jibrin Tau & 1 OR CCT/TR/08/08
The case was called and all the accused persons were present. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused persons. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted.
The defense declared their intention to object to the charge against the accused person on the grounds that the charge offends paragraph 1 of the 3rd schedule to CCB & T Act and section 221 of the CPC. The Tribunal ordered him to file a motion to argue his objection.
Consequently the matter was adjourned to 7th May 2013.

FRN v. Agirah Daniel & 7 ORS CCT/TR/09/08
The case was called the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th accused persons were present. The 6th accused person is deceased and therefore his name was struck off the charge. While the 8th accused person is on exams leave. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused persons and urged the Tribunal to excuse the personal appearance of the accused persons that were absent. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted. The defence declared their intention to object to the charge against the accused person on the grounds that the charge offends paragraph 1 of the 3rd schedule to CCB & T Act and section 221 of the CPC. The Tribunal ordered him to file a motion to argue his objection.
Consequently the matter was adjourned to 7th May 2013.

FRN v. Anyigbo U.E. & 1 OR CCT/TR/10/08
The case was called the 1st accused person is deceased and therefore his name was struck out of the charge. The 2nd accused person was present. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused persons. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted. The defense declared their intention to object to the charge against the accused person on the grounds that the charge offends paragraph 1 of the 3rd schedule to CCB & T Act and section 221 of the CPC. The Tribunal ordered him to file a motion to argue his objection.
Consequently the matter was adjourned to 8th May 2013.

FRN v. L.D. Orubuloye & 9 ORS CCT/TR/11/08
The case was called the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th accused persons were present. The 2nd and 9th accused persons were deceased therefore their names were struck out of the charge. While the other three accused persons were absent. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted. The amended charge was read to the accused persons and they pleaded not guilty to the charge. Consequent on their plea of not guilty the prosecution led evidence through one witness and tendered one document.
The accused persons also opened their defence stating through the 3rd accused person that they did not sign and receive form ccb1. Under cross examination it was discovered, by comparison with a letter signed by 6th accused person, that the signature on the receipt slip was that of the 6th accused person.
The Tribunal in its judgement discharged and acquitted the accused persons on the grounds of inadequate evidence to establish that accused persons actually received form ccb1 and failed to return them.

29TH NOVEMBER 2012

FRN v. Musa I. Mohammed & 4 ORS CCT/TR/12/08
The case was called and all the accused persons were present except the 5th accused person. The prosecution applied for a date to enable it file charges against the accused persons individually. But the Tribunal discharged the accused persons stating since the present charge cannot be sustained it was only fair for the accused to be discharged until a fresh charge is filed against them.

FRN v. Okonkwo Isioma CCT/TR/13/08
The case was called and the accused was in court the prosecution moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted. The amended charge was read to the accused person and he pleaded guilty with reasons. The accused pleaded with the Tribunal to temper justice with mercy stating that he has never been in breach of the law. In consideration of his allocutors the Tribunal warned and cautioned him not to breach the code again.
FRN v. Dahiru A. Bashir & 8 ORS CCT/TR/14/08
The case was called and all the accused persons were present except the 2nd accused person. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused persons and urged the Tribunal to excuse the personal appearance of the accused person that was absent. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted.

The defence declared their intention to object to the charge against the accused person on the grounds that the charge offends paragraph 1 of the 3rd schedule to CCB & T Act and section 221 of the CPC. The Tribunal ordered him to file a motion to argue his objection.
Consequently the matter was adjourned to 8th May 2013.

FRN v. Onold S. Onoja & 1 OR CCT/TR/15/08
The case was called the 1st accused person is deceased therefore the charge was stuck out against him. The 2nd accused person is sick. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused person and urged the Tribunal to excuse the personal appearance of the accused person that was absent.
Consequent on the absence on the grounds of ill health, the matter was adjourned to 8th May 2013.

FRN v. Sabo Y. Saidu & 3 ORS CCT/TR/16/08
The case was called the 1st accused person is deceased therefore his name was struck out of the charge. The 4th accused person was present while others were absent. The prosecution moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted. The amended charge was read to the accused person who pleaded guilty to the charge. The Tribunal however cautioned the accused person and urged him to be law abiding.

FRN v. Collins Ogedegbe CCT/TR/17/08
The case was called the accused was present the prosecution moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted. The amended charge was read to the accused person and he pleaded not guilty to the charge on the grounds that he declared his assets in 2001 and was not due to declare in 2004. In support of his claim he presented his acknowledgement slip. On this premise the Tribunal acquitted the accused person.

FRN v. Bala Ahmadu Ajiduke & 4 ORS CCT/TR/18/08
The case was called the 3rd and 5th accused persons are deceased therefore the charge was struck off against them.
The others were absent because they were not served. John Okezie and M. Oleka announced their appearance for the accused persons and urged the Tribunal to excuse the personal appearance of the accused persons. The prosecution thereafter moved an application to amend the charge to read 90 days in conformity with paragraph 11(1) of the 5th schedule to the 1999 constitution as amended. The application was granted.
Consequent on their absence, the matter was adjourned to 8th May 2013 to enable service to be effected on them.


CASES CONCLUDED: Arguments on Preliminary objections raised in most of the major cases were concluded and they were adjourned for ruling as shown

Below:-

(a) FRN VS Musa Mubeen - 16/1/2013 for Ruling
(b) FRN VS Dauda Ashigye - 23/1/2013 for Ruling
(c) FRN VS Yakubu Musa - 6/2/2013 for Ruling
(d) FRN VS Willie Siyanbola - 6/2/2013 for Ruling
(e) FRN VS Nathaniel Odediram - 27/2/2013 for Ruling

Source: http://www.codeofconductbureau.gov.ng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88&Itemid=85
Retrieved: 21 September 2015

lalasticlala

pls what was the outcome of all those cases. If it was adjourned to 2013 for ruling. What was the outcome?

saintopus:
I think so many things will happen between now and 2019 but none of them look like Saraki ever going to jail.

Beside was it not this same guy most APC fans were hailing when he defected from the PDP?
What happened to the alliance?

the alliance shouldn't support corruption.

saintopus:
I think so many things will happen between now and 2019 but none of them look like Saraki ever going to jail.

Beside was it not this same guy most APC fans were hailing when he defected from the PDP?
What happened to the alliance?

why we no go hail am
we use him and his votes the same way he used ours
learn how to play the game son

CCT are just bunch of jokers....No guts! Saraki will walk out that door without anything being done to him.