The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, issued an arrest warrant for the Managing Director of Dana Air, Mr. Hathiramani Ranesh, following his failure to appear in court to face trial.
Justice Obiora Egwuatu, presiding over the case, ruled that Ranesh’s arrest was warranted due to his repeated non-appearance, despite being duly served with court notices and having knowledge of the proceedings.
Justice Egwuatu, invoking Section 184 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015, emphasized that the court has the authority to mandate an arrest for any defendant who fails to honor court appearances.
The judge stated, “The 1st defendant is bound to appear before the court and if he does not, the court can issue a warrant for his arrest.” Justice Egwuatu then formally declared, “Accordingly relying on the said provision, I hereby issue a warrant of arrest for the arrest of the 1st defendant.”
He further directed that “the defendant shall appear before this court on 13th of January, 2025, before any objection can be taken,” and subsequently adjourned the matter until that date for further proceedings.
News Agency of Nigeria reported that the Federal Government, through its legal representative, Mojisola-Okeya Esho, had previously urged the court on October 10 to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of Dana Air’s Managing Director.
Esho argued that Ranesh had refused to attend his arraignment on charges brought by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation related to a complex N1.3 billion fraud case.
However, the defense counsel, B. Ademola-Bello, countered Esho’s request, asserting that they had already filed a preliminary objection to the court’s jurisdiction over the matter, with the prosecution duly served.
Esho opposed this approach, insisting that the defendants needed to be formally arraigned before any jurisdictional issues could be addressed.
The court scheduled Monday, November 4, as the date to proceed with the arraignment or consider the preliminary objection.
The charges against Ranesh and two other defendants were filed by Moshood Adeyemi, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in the AGF’s office, under case number FHC/ABJ/CR/101/2021.
The AGF’s office named Dana Group PLC and Dana Steel Ltd as the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
According to the six-count charge, between September and December 2018, at the Dana Steel Rolling Factory in Katsina, the defendants allegedly conspired to remove, convert, and sell industrial generators worth over N450 million.
These generators, valued at over N450 million, were collateralized as part of a Deed of Asset Debenture, which remained active as security for a bond agreement.
Further allegations involve a scheme to fraudulently divert N864 million from bond proceeds originally designated for the resuscitation of production at the Katsina factory.
In addition, the prosecution claims that the defendants, along with unidentified accomplices, conspired to transfer N60.3 million to an account held by Atlantic Shrimpers with Access Bank, also allegedly part of the bond proceeds.
The cumulative sum in the alleged fraud totals approximately N1.37 billion, with the charges against them punishable under Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
When the case resumed on Monday, Ademola-Bello informed the court of compliance with the prior directive to submit written arguments on legal points regarding Sections 221 and 396(2) of the ACJA, 2015.
“In compliance, we filed our written address on 31st of October, 2024. Upon receipt of prosecution’s response, we also filed a reply on points of law dated 31st day of October, 2024,” he stated, expressing readiness to continue with the defense.
Esho, representing the AGF, confirmed receipt of these filings. However, when asked by Justice Egwuatu why Ranesh and the corporate defendants were absent, Ademola-Bello responded that Ranesh was out of the country, noting that Dana Group and Dana Steel Ltd are statutory bodies under Ranesh’s management.
Justice Egwuatu, appearing frustrated, questioned the respect shown to the court when the defendants were not present, asking, “Are we playing here? Where is the respect for the court when the people you are defending are not in court?”
The defense lawyer argued that Section 266 of the ACJA allows for a defendant’s absence in certain situations. Nevertheless, Justice Egwuatu concluded by issuing an arrest order for Ranesh, insisting that he must be brought before the court at the next hearing date.
