A Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, presided over by Justice Musa Kakaki, was on Monday asked to recuse itself from an alleged trafficking of 184.5 kg of cocaine and money laundering case involving a Lagos-based social media influencer and businessman, Afolabi Michael Kazeem, popularly known as KC Luxury.
The request for Justice Kakaki’s withdrawal from the case came through the businessman’s lawyer, Chief Emefo Etudo, following the court’s refusal last Wednesday to grant him bail on medical grounds.
It would be recalled that Justice Kakaki had ruled that the defendant failed to establish special circumstances to warrant his release on health grounds.
Though during the resumption of hearing on the matter, Kazeem was absent, his lawyer, Chief Etudo, informed the court that his client no longer has confidence in the court due to alleged irregularities in court records and concerns over his deteriorating health.
The senior lawyer hinted to the judge that the record of proceedings did not reflect the October 28, 2026, ruling delivered on his client’s bail application, adding that all efforts to obtain a Certified True Copy of the ruling from the court registry proved abortive as the defence was informed the judge was yet to sign it, a delay he said could affect his client’s right to appeal within time.
Chief Etudo equally alleged that a reply affidavit filed by the defence had gone missing from the court file, raising concerns about the safety of documents.
According to Chief Etudo, ‘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.’
The lawyer further frowned at the lack of verbatim recording facilities in the Federal High Court, arguing that proper recording equipment would prevent such discrepancies.
Chief Etudo equally contended that the prosecution’s evidence did not link the first, second, and third defendants to the alleged offences, adding that he would file a separate application challenging the sufficiency of evidence.
But in opposing the application, the counsel for the prosecution, Ibrahim Abu, insisted that the matter was slated for trial and faulted the defence for not explaining Kazeem’s absence.
In his words: ‘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.’
The prosecution counsel revealed that he was served the application during a court stand-down, with an addition that he needed five days to respond.
Abu described allegations of bias as serious, maintaining that refusal of bail is at the discretion of the court and cannot amount to bias. He said the defence could appeal the bail refusal.
The lawyer confirmed that six prosecution witnesses were in court and ready to testify.
On his part, the lawyer for the second defendant, Augustine Audu, SAN, prayed to the court to entertain the recusal application first, noting that it had stalled the accelerated hearing earlier ordered by the court.
The SAN equally urged the prosecution to sever the charges to allow the second and third defendants to stand trial separately.
The SAN said, ‘We do not want the fate of the second and third defendants to be tied to the first defendant, because we are stuck,’ and added that his clients were languishing in custody despite the presumption of innocence.
Responding, Etudo noted that he reluctantly filed the application because his client had lost confidence in the court. He made public that Kazeem’s health had deteriorated and cited a previous experience at the Ikeja High Court where a client with prostate cancer died in custody after bail on medical grounds was refused.
The hearing on the recusal application has been adjourned until November 25, 2026.