Social media influencer, Afolabi Kazeem, popularly known as KC Luxury, standing trial over the alleged trafficking of 184.5kg of cocaine and money laundering, has asked a Federal High Court in Lagos to reassign his case, accusing the presiding judge of irregularities in court records and expressing concerns over his deteriorating health.
Kazeem, through his lawyer, Emefo Etudo, urged Justice Musa Kakaki to recuse himself from the case, alleging that discrepancies in the court records and the disappearance of a defence affidavit had undermined his confidence in the proceedings.
The application was made on Monday when the case came up for further hearing. Kazeem was, however, absent from court.
Etudo told the court that the proceedings record did not capture the ruling delivered on October 28, 2026, when the court rejected his client's application for bail on medical grounds.
According to him, efforts to obtain a certified copy of the ruling from the court registry had been unsuccessful, with the defence allegedly informed that the judge had yet to sign the decision.
He argued that the situation could prejudice Kazeem's right to appeal within the time stipulated by law.
The lawyer also raised concerns over the alleged disappearance of a reply affidavit filed by the defence, questioning the security and integrity of documents submitted before the court.
He said, “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 recording system, arguing that the provision of equipment for verbatim recording of court proceedings would help prevent disputes over statements and decisions made during hearings.
He maintained that the alleged irregularities had further weakened his client's confidence in the court.
The defence counsel also questioned the prosecution's evidence, arguing that the documents tendered had not sufficiently established the alleged offences against the first, second and third defendants.
He said he intended to file a separate application challenging the adequacy of the prosecution's evidence but insisted that the court should first determine the request for recusal.
However, prosecution counsel, Ibrahim Abu, opposed the move to take the application immediately, arguing that the matter was scheduled for trial and that the defence had failed to explain Kazeem's absence.
Abu said the prosecution had six witnesses in court and was prepared to proceed with the trial in line with the court's earlier directives.
“I thought what Chief Etudo would have begun with was to address the business of the day, which is trial. Etudo has not explained to the court where his client is. That is where he should have begun from,” he said.
The prosecution counsel, who said he was served with the recusal application during the court's stand-down, requested five days to respond, arguing that the application was not yet ripe for hearing.
Abu also dismissed the allegation of judicial bias, maintaining that the court had treated all parties fairly and that the rejection of a bail application could not, by itself, amount to evidence of bias.
He argued that the trial had not commenced and that the defence could challenge the bail decision through an appeal or file another 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,” he said.
The prosecution equally opposed any suggestion that the charges should be separated, insisting that the first count bordered on conspiracy involving the defendants.
Meanwhile, counsel to the second defendant, Augustine Audu, SAN, confirmed that his client had also been served with the recusal application during the stand-down.
Audu urged the court to determine the application before proceeding with the trial, arguing that the pending issues had stalled the case and defeated the objective of accelerated hearing.
He also called on the prosecution to amend the charge and separate the defendants to allow the second and third defendants to face trial independently of Kazeem.
“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 advocate argued that the conspiracy charge did not prevent the prosecution from proceeding against defendants who were available, even where other alleged participants were absent.
“The fate of the second and third defendants cannot be left hanging. The first count is conspiracy, and people can be tried while others are at large,” he argued.
Audu further urged the court to consider bail for the second and third defendants, insisting that they should not continue to languish in custody because of applications involving another defendant.
He said his client was eager to face trial and clear his name, adding that he would not oppose Kazeem's recusal application because it was essentially 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 had lost 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.
The lawyer also raised fresh concerns about Kazeem's health, alleging that his condition had deteriorated significantly and challenging the prosecution to verify his medical state.
He recalled a previous case at the Ikeja High Court in which he had sought the release of a client suffering from prostate cancer to enable him to obtain medical treatment.
According to Etudo, the court declined the request and the defendant died before the next adjourned date.
He said the experience had heightened his concerns about the consequences of keeping Kazeem in custody despite his alleged deteriorating health.
The prosecution, however, maintained its readiness to commence the trial and reiterated its request for five days to respond to the recusal application.
Justice Kakaki subsequently adjourned the matter until November 25, 2026, for hearing of submissions on the application.
Kazeem and two others were remanded in custody by the Federal High Court in Lagos on September 25, 2026, following their arraignment by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) over the alleged trafficking and attempted export of 184.5kg of cocaine valued at approximately N39bn.
He was arraigned alongside Boniface Freeman Ochoche Sule and Ikechukwu Ekugo Patriarch on a 22-count charge bordering on conspiracy, cocaine trafficking, illegal exportation of narcotics and money laundering.
The case has also drawn attention to Kazeem's health condition. On October 23, 2026, The PUNCH reported that the influencer was brought to court in an ambulance, receiving oxygen, as his lawyer sought his release on bail to enable him to access specialised medical treatment.
During the proceedings, a correctional officer reportedly told the court that Kazeem was critically ill and had been hospitalised. The officer also called the nurse attending to him to provide further information on his condition.
Leave a Reply