Alleged N1.3bn fraud: FG seeks bench warrant against Dana Air MD, Ranesh

0
6

Photo: From Left to Right: Reinstated Deputy Governor of Edo, Philip Shaibu; his lawyer, Ayotunde Ogunleye, SAN, and Olusegun Jolaawo, SAN, counsel to the Edo House of Assembly after court sitting on Monday in Abuja.

The Federal Government, on Thursday prayed a Federal High Court in Abuja to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the Managing Director (MD) of Dana Air, Mr Hathiramani Ranesh.

The federal government alleged that Ranesh has refused to appear for his arraignment in the alleged N1.3 billion fraud.

Mojisola Okeya, Counsel to the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), made the oral application before Justuce Obiora Egwuatu following Ranesh’s absence in court for his arraignment.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Federal Government, through the AGF, had filed a six-count charge against Ranesh and two others.

In the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/101/2021 and filed by Moshood Adeyemi, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in the office of the AGF and Minister of Justice, Dana Group PLC and Dana Steel Ltd were joined as 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively.

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.”

See also  Alleged fraud: FG to arraign Dana Air MD, others on Oct. 13

In count three, the defendants and others at large at House No. 116, Oshodi-Apapa Expressway, Isolo-Lagos between April 7th and 8th, 2014, were alleged to have conspired to fraudulently divert the sum N864 million.

The money was said to be part of the bond proceeds from Ecobank meant for resuscitation of production at Dana Steel Rolling Factory in Katsina for other unapproved uses.

In count five, the defendants and others at large were alleged to have “conspired to fraudulently remove and transfer to one Atlantic Shrimpers Account No: 0001633175 with Access Bank and divert the sum of N60,300,000 (Sixty Million Three Hundred Thousand Naira).”

The money was said to be part of the bond proceeds from Ecobank meant for resuscitation of production at Dana Steel Rolling Factory in Katsina for other unapproved uses.

The cumulative sum of the amount involved in the charge is N1, 374, 300, 000.

All the offences are said to be contrary to and punishable under Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

NAN observes that Ranesh had not appear in court in the previous proceedings.

However, when the matter was called on Thursday, Okeya told the court that though the case was scheduled for arraignment of the defendants, Ranesh was not in court.

The AGF’s lawyer then urged the court to issue a bench warrant for Ranesh’s arrest.

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.

See also  Alleged fraud: Again, judge’s absence stalls arraignment of Dana Air MD, others

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 Nov. 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here