Businessman and social media influencer, Afolabi Kazeem Michael, popularly known as KC Luxury, has asked a Federal High Court judge in Lagos to withdraw from his ongoing trial.
Michael, who is standing trial over
alleged cocaine trafficking and money laundering worth about N39bn, accused the court of irregularities in its handling of proceedings.
Michael, through his lawyer, Emefo Etudo, on Monday, filed an application seeking the recusal of Justice Musa Kakaki, citing alleged discrepancies in court records, a missing defence affidavit and concerns over his deteriorating health.
The application was brought before the court after the judge, on October 28, 2026, rejected Kazeem’s request for bail on medical grounds.
At Monday’s proceedings, Micheal was absent from court, with his lawyer informing the judge that his client had lost confidence in the court over what he described as irregularities surrounding the handling of documents and the recording of proceedings.
Etudo told the court that the October 28 ruling refusing his client’s bail application was yet to be reflected in the official record of proceedings.
He alleged that repeated efforts to obtain a copy of the ruling from the court registry had been unsuccessful, adding that the defence was informed that the judge had not signed the decision.
According to him, the situation could undermine his client’s constitutional right to appeal within the prescribed period.
The lawyer also raised concerns over an alleged missing reply affidavit filed by the defence, questioning the safety and integrity of documents submitted before the court.
He told the court, “The record of proceedings did not reflect that any ruling was made on October 28, 2026, by this honourable court. And we don’t feel so safe that our evidence, like the reply affidavit that got missing, is safe in the court.”
Etudo further faulted the Federal High Court’s lack of adequate recording facilities, arguing that the use of verbatim recording equipment would help preserve statements and decisions made during proceedings.
He maintained that the alleged discrepancies had further weakened his client’s confidence in the judicial process.
The defence lawyer also questioned the prosecution’s evidence, insisting that the documents presented before the court did not establish a connection between the first, second and third defendants and the alleged offences.
He said he intended to file another application challenging the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence but urged the court to first determine the recusal request.
However, prosecution counsel, Ibrahim Abu, opposed the move to immediately hear the application, arguing that the matter was scheduled for trial and that the defence had failed to explain why the first defendant was absent.
Abu said the prosecution had six witnesses in court and was prepared to commence the trial in line with the court’s earlier directive for an accelerated hearing.
He also requested five days to respond to the recusal application, which he said was served on him during the court’s stand-down.
The prosecution counsel argued that allegations of judicial bias were serious and insisted that the court had treated all parties fairly.
He maintained that the refusal of Micheal’s bail application did not amount to bias, stressing that the defence had the option of appealing the decision or filing another bail application.
“Refusal of bail is the discretion of the court. That is not bias. There is an opportunity to appeal the decision, which has not been taken,” Abu said.
Meanwhile, counsel to the second defendant, Augustine Audu, SAN, urged the court to determine the pending application before proceeding with the trial.
Audu, who said his client was also served with the application during the stand-down, argued that the proceedings had been stalled by issues involving the first defendant, leaving the other defendants uncertain about their fate.
He urged the prosecution to consider amending the charge and separating the defendants to allow the second and third defendants to face trial independently.
“We do not want the fate of the second and third defendants to be tied to the first defendant, because we are stuck,” he said.
The senior lawyer argued that the conspiracy charge did not prevent the prosecution from proceeding against some defendants while others were unavailable.
He also urged the court to consider bail for the second and third defendants, insisting that they should not remain in custody indefinitely because of proceedings involving another defendant.
Audu said his client was eager to face trial and clear his name, adding that he would not oppose the recusal application because it was a matter between the first defendant and the prosecution.
Responding, Etudo said he had reluctantly approached the court with the recusal application because his client no longer had confidence in the proceedings.
“My client has lost confidence in this court, and that is why I have had to bring this application, although I was reluctant to do so,” he said.
He also raised fresh concerns about Micheal’s health, alleging that his condition had deteriorated and challenging the prosecution to verify his medical situation.
The lawyer recounted a previous case at the Ikeja High Court involving a defendant suffering from prostate cancer, whose request for release to obtain medical treatment was allegedly refused.
According to Etudo, the defendant subsequently died before the next adjourned date, an experience he said informed his fears over Micheal’s condition and the consequences of prolonged detention.
He insisted that his client was in a critical state and needed appropriate medical attention.
Following the arguments, Justice Kakaki adjourned the case until November 25, 2026, for the hearing of the parties’ submissions on the recusal application.
The development comes amid concerns over Micheal’s health, after he appeared at the court in an ambulance on October 23, receiving oxygen as his lawyer sought medical bail to enable him to access specialised treatment.
During the proceedings, a correctional officer reportedly informed the court that Michael was critically ill and had been hospitalised, while a nurse attending to him was also brought before the court.
He was remanded alongside Boniface Freeman Ochoche Sule and Ikechukwu Ekugo Patriarch on September 25, 2026, following their arraignment by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency on a 22-count charge bordering on conspiracy, cocaine trafficking, attempted illegal exportation of narcotics and money laundering.
The defendants are accused of trafficking and attempting to export 184.5 kilogrammes of cocaine valued at approximately N39bn.
