Businessman and social media influencer Afolabi Kazeem, widely known as KC Luxury, who is standing trial over alleged trafficking of 184.5kg of cocaine and money laundering, has asked Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court in Lagos to step down from the case, citing alleged irregularities in the court records and concerns about his health.
The request came after the court declined last Wednesday to grant Kazeem bail on medical grounds, with the judge ruling that the defendant had not shown special circumstances or provided enough evidence to justify his release.
When proceedings resumed on Monday, KC Luxury, who was not in court, sought the judge’s withdrawal through his counsel, Emefo Etudo, who appeared alongside Mrs Charity Etudo.
Etudo informed the court that the record of proceedings did not show the October 28, 2026 ruling delivered on his client’s bail application, adding that repeated attempts to get a copy from the court registry had been unsuccessful.
He stated that the defence was told the judge had not yet signed the ruling, raising fears that the delay could undermine his client’s right to appeal within the stipulated period.
Etudo further alleged that a reply affidavit filed by the defence had gone missing, casting doubt on the safety of documents submitted to 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 went on to criticise the Federal High Court for not having sufficient recording facilities, contending that verbatim recording equipment would guarantee that statements and decisions made during proceedings were captured accurately.
He asserted that the inconsistencies in the court records had further undermined his client’s confidence in the court.
Etudo also challenged the prosecution’s evidence, maintaining that the documents brought before the court did not show any link between the first, second and third defendants and the alleged offences.
He stated that he planned to file a separate application contesting the sufficiency of the evidence, but he wanted the court to decide the recusal application first.
Prosecution counsel Ibrahim Abu opposed the request to hear the application immediately, arguing that the matter had been scheduled for trial and that the defence had not accounted for the first defendant’s absence.
Abu said, “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 informed the court that the prosecution had six witnesses present and was prepared to begin the trial as previously ordered.
Abu, who stated that he received the application during the court’s stand-down, contended that it was not yet ripe for hearing and asked for five days to respond instead of the seven days normally permitted under the rules.
In opposing the application, the prosecution characterized allegations of judicial bias as serious and insisted that the court had treated all parties fairly.
Abu contended that the trial had not begun and that the denial of a bail application could not by itself demonstrate bias on the part of the court.
He noted that the defence could either appeal the bail decision or file a fresh application.
“Refusal of bail is the discretion of the court. That does not amount to bias. There is an opportunity to appeal the decision, which has not been exercised,” he said.
The prosecution likewise opposed the proposal to sever the charges, contending that the first count alleged a conspiracy involving the defendants.
Counsel for the second defendant, Augustine Audu, SAN, confirmed that his client had also been served with the application during the stand-down, but urged the court to hear and determine it before continuing with the trial.
Audu contended that the pending application had held up the proceedings and defeated the purpose of the order for accelerated hearing.
He further urged the prosecution to amend the charge and separate the defendants so that the second and third defendants could proceed with their trial independently of the first defendant.
“We do not want the fate of the second and third defendants tied to the first defendant, because we are stuck,” he said.
The senior advocate maintained that the conspiracy count did not stop the prosecution from proceeding against some defendants while others remained at large.
“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.
He went on to ask the court to grant bail to the second and third defendants, arguing that they should not be kept in custody while the first defendant’s application delayed the trial.
Audu stated that his client was keen to stand trial and clear his name, and added that the second defendant should not have to suffer the consequences of proceedings involving another defendant.
Audu Augustine, counsel to the second defendant, stated that he would not contest the recusal application, pointing out that it concerned only the first defendant and the prosecution.
He stated that his client was languishing in custody even though he is presumed innocent.
In response, Etudo stated that he had filed the recusal application reluctantly because his client had lost confidence in the court.
“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,” Etudo stated.
He revealed that Kazeem’s health had worsened and challenged the prosecution to verify his condition.
Etudo recalled an earlier case at the Ikeja High Court in which he had sought the release of a client suffering from prostate cancer so that the client could receive medical treatment.
According to him, the court declined the application, and the defendant died before the next adjourned date.
Etudo stated that this experience shaped his concerns about Kazeem’s worsening health and the consequences of keeping him in custody.
He insisted that his client was in a pitiful state and no longer had confidence in the court.
The prosecution stated that it remained ready to proceed with the trial but asked for five days to respond to the recusal application.
Justice Kakaki, however, adjourned the case until November 25, 2026, for the hearing of the submission of the application.
On September 25, 2026, the Federal High Court in Lagos remanded KC Luxury and two others over the alleged trafficking and attempted export of 184.5kg of cocaine worth about N39 billion.
He was arraigned alongside Boniface Freeman Ochoche Sule and Ikechukwu Ekugo Patriarch by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency on a 22-count charge relating to conspiracy, cocaine trafficking, illegal export of narcotics and money laundering.
On October 23, 2026, KC Luxury appeared at the Lagos court in an ambulance, receiving oxygen as his lawyer sought his release on bail for specialised medical care.
When the hearing resumed, a correctional officer informed the court that Kazeem was seriously ill and had been taken to hospital.
