KC Luxury Seeks Judge’s Recusal Over Missing Court Records In Cocaine Trial

Businessman and social media influencer Afolabi Michael Kazeem, popularly known as KC Luxury, has asked a Federal High Court in Lagos to withdraw from his trial over alleged trafficking of 184.5kg of cocaine and money laundering over irregularities in its records and concerns about his worsening health.

Kazeem, who made the request on Monday through his lawyer, Chief Emefo Etudo, is seeking Justice Musa Kakaki’s recusal. He alleged that missing court documents and the failure to obtain a copy of the judge’s recent ruling had undermined his confidence in the proceedings.

The application came less than a week after Justice Kakaki rejected Kazeem’s request for bail on medical grounds, ruling that he had not shown exceptional circumstances or provided sufficient evidence to justify his release from custody.

Read Also: Court Denies KC Luxury, Others Bail Over Alleged Cocaine Trafficking

KC Luxury and his co-defendants, Boniface Sule and Ikechukwu Patriarch, were arraigned by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) on a 22-count amended charge of conspiracy, illegal possession, procurement, cocaine exportation and money laundering.

They pleaded not guilty to the charges.

When the case resumed on Monday, Etudo told the judge that the record of proceedings did not include the ruling delivered on 28 October.

He alleged that repeated attempts to obtain a certified copy of the ruling from the court registry had failed, and that the defence had been told the judge had not yet signed it.

He said the delay could prejudice Kazeem’s right to appeal within the prescribed period.

The lawyer also alleged that a reply affidavit filed by the defence had gone missing, raising concerns about the security of documents submitted to 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 said.

Etudo also criticised the court’s lack of adequate recording facilities, arguing that electronic recording would help preserve an accurate account of statements, arguments and judicial decisions.

He questioned the prosecution’s evidence, saying the documents tendered so far did not establish the alleged link between the first, second and third defendants and the offences.

He said he planned to file a separate application challenging the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence, but wanted the court to decide the recusal application first.

Opposing the request, prosecution counsel Ibrahim Abu accused the defence of trying to derail the scheduled trial and noted that Kazeem was absent from court without explanation.

“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,” Abu said.

He told the court that six prosecution witnesses were present and ready to testify, in line with the court’s earlier directive for an accelerated hearing.

Abu said he received the recusal application during the court’s stand-down. He argued it was not yet ready for hearing and requested five days to respond.

He also rejected the allegations of judicial bias, saying the court had treated all parties fairly and that the refusal of bail did not indicate partiality.

According to Abu, the defence could appeal the bail ruling or file another application instead of seeking the judge’s withdrawal.

“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 argued.

The prosecution also opposed any suggestion to sever the charges, maintaining that the first count involved an alleged conspiracy among the defendants.

Counsel for the second defendant, Augustine Audu (SAN), urged the court to decide the recusal application before starting the trial. He warned that the other defendants should not remain in custody indefinitely because of proceedings involving Kazeem.

Audu said he would not oppose the application because it concerned the first defendant and the prosecution.

He also urged the prosecution to consider amending the charge to separate the defendants, allowing the second and third defendants to stand trial independently.

Audu further asked the court to consider the bail applications of the second and third defendants, saying they should not remain in custody while the case against Kazeem was stalled.

He said his client was eager to stand trial and clear his name, adding that delays involving another defendant should not undermine the presumption of innocence.

Justice Kakaki adjourned the case to November 25 for the hearing of the application.