FG asks court for permission to arrest Dana Air MD Hathiramani Ranesh
By Jeffrey Agbo
The Federal Government, on Thursday, asked a Federal High Court in Abuja to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the Managing Director (MD) of Dana Air, Hathiramani Ranesh.
Attorney-General of the Federation, represented by Mojisola Okeya, told Justice Obiora Egwuatu that Mr Ranesh has refused to appear for his arraignment over alleged N1.3 billion fraud.
Mr Ranesh, Dana Group Plc and Dana Steel Ltd and others are facing a six-count charge of fraud.
In count one, Ranesh and the two companies, alongside others at large, were alleged to have committed a felony between September and December 2018 within the premises of DANA Steel Rolling Factory in Katsina.
They were alleged to have conspired to remove, convert and sell four units of industrial generators “i.e. three (3) units Ht of 9,000 KVA and 1 unit of 1,000 KVA; all valued at over N450 million, which form part of the Deed of Asset Debenture that were charged as collateral security for a bond issued in your favour, which Deed is still subsisting at all material times.”
During hearing on Thursday, the AGF’s lawyer urged the court to issue a bench warrant for Ranesh’s arrest.
READ ALSO:
NDLEA drops husband’s written approval as requirement for married women’s visa clearance
But the defence lawyer, B. Ademola-Bello, disagreed with Okeya.
He argued that they had filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter and that the prosecution had already been served.
Okeya, on her part, objected to taking the preliminary objection on the ground that the defendants ought to be arraigned first before the court could entertain any other application.
But Ademola-Bello, who insisted that his objection had to be decided before his clients’ arraignment, cited some previous cases to back his argument.
Justice Egwuatu then asked Ademola-Bello to refer the court to any section of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, that makes provision for his request.
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until November 4 and ordered the parties to address the court in the next adjourned date on whether the preliminary objection ought to be taken before arraignment.
