Babatunji Wusu –
- The federal government seeks a bench warrant for the arrest of Hathiramani Ranesh for failing to appear in court.
- Mr. Ranesh faces charges of fraud involving N1.3 billion related to Dana Steel and Dana Air.
- The charges include conspiracy to misappropriate funds and sell company assets unlawfully.
- The defense challenges the court’s jurisdiction and argues for addressing the preliminary objection before arraignment.
- The court has adjourned the case until November 4 for further proceedings.
On Thursday, the federal government petitioned a Federal High Court in Abuja to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of Hathiramani Ranesh, Managing Director of Dana Air. The government alleges that Mr. Ranesh has failed to appear for his arraignment in connection with a fraud case involving N1.3 billion.
Mojisola Okeya, representing the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), presented the oral application before Justice Obiora Egwuatu after Mr. Ranesh was absent from court. The AGF’s office had previously filed a six-count charge against Mr. Ranesh and two other defendants—Dana Group PLC and Dana Steel Ltd—under case number FHC/ABJ/CR/101/2021.
The charges include allegations of felony committed between September and December 2018 at the DANA Steel Rolling Factory in Katsina, where Mr. Ranesh and others allegedly conspired to unlawfully remove, convert, and sell four industrial generators valued at over N450 million. Another charge accuses the defendants of fraudulently diverting N864 million intended for the resumption of production at the factory.
Additionally, they are accused of conspiring to transfer N60.3 million to an Atlantic Shrimpers account, misappropriating funds meant for the factory’s operational revival. In total, the charges involve a cumulative amount of approximately N1.4 billion, with all offenses punishable under Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act.
During the hearing, Ms. Okeya noted Mr. Ranesh’s continued absence and requested the court to issue a bench warrant for his arrest. In response, defense attorney B. Ademola-Bello contested this, arguing that they had filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction, which had already been served to the prosecution. He asserted that the preliminary objection should be addressed prior to any arraignment.
Ms. Okeya countered, stating that the defendants should be arraigned before any other applications could be considered. Justice Egwuatu requested Mr. Ademola-Bello to reference any provisions in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 that supported his request. The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until November 4, directing both parties to prepare arguments regarding whether the preliminary objection should be resolved before the arraignment.
