The detained businessman, Afolabi Kazeem Micheal a.ka. KC Luxury
Justice Friday Ogazi of a Federal High Court, Lagos, today, adjourned until September 21, 2026, hearing of pending applications in the case involving detained businessman and Socialite, Afolabi Kazeem Michael, popularly known as KC Luxury.
The adjournment was sequel to the submissions of the detained businessman’s lawyer, Abdulakeem Labi-Lawal (SAN), and Mr. Abu Ibrahim, counsel to the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA)
Both lawyers had prayed the court to await the ruling of a sister court on an application challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
At today’s proceedings, Labi-Lawal (SAN) told the court that although the NDLEA had obtained an order authorising it to keep Kazeem in custody for 30 days to conduct further investigations, the order did not expressly mandate that he remain detained throughout the entire period.
The senior lawyer further submitted that the NDLEA could release his client on bail if it was satisfied with the progress of its investigation.
The lawyer explained that Kazeem had challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to grant the detention order, adding that the application had already been argued and the parties were awaiting the court’s ruling.
He urged Justice Ogazi to adjourn the matter to enable the parties respond to the processes already filed.
Labi-Lawal noted that the respondents had served their counter-affidavit on the applicant’s legal team and that the applicant had five days within which to respond.
Responding, NDLEA lawyer, Ibrahim, did not oppose the application for adjournment.
He however told the court that the 30-day remand order was obtained in August, before Kazeem subsequently approached the court seeking an order for his production.
Justice Ogazi consequently adjourned the matter until September 21 for further proceedings.
Kazeem, through his lawyers led by Labi-Lawal, is challenging the legality of the August 20, 2026 ex parte order authorising his detention for 30 days in the first instance for further investigation into allegations of drug trafficking.
In the application filed in Suit No. FHC/LAG/MISC/1199/2026, the defence is asking the court to set aside or discharge the order on the grounds that no criminal charge had been filed against Kazeem.
The lawyers argued that the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction to try offences under the NDLEA Act is distinct from its power to make a pre-charge remand order.
According to them, the fact that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to try offences under the NDLEA Act does not automatically confer on it the power to remand an uncharged suspect merely to allow investigators more time to complete their investigation.
“The jurisdiction to try a person charged with an offence under the NDLEA Act is fundamentally different from the jurisdiction to remand a suspect who has not yet been charged,” the lawyers submitted.
The defence has also challenged the duration of the detention, arguing that the 30-day order is contrary to the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
The lawyers relied on Sections 293 to 299 of the ACJA, which provide the statutory framework for pre-charge remand.
They specifically cited Section 296(1), which provides that an initial remand order shall be for a period not exceeding 14 days in the first instance.
The defence argued that the use of the words “shall,” “not exceeding” and “in the first instance” leaves no discretion for a court to substitute 30 days for the statutory maximum of 14 days.
They argued that where investigators require additional time to keep a suspect in custody, the law requires further judicial scrutiny rather than permitting a single, uninterrupted 30-day detention order.
Kazeem’s lawyers have also asked the court to abridge the time for hearing the application and bring forward the September 17 date earlier fixed for review of the detention order.
They argued that allowing the detention to continue could amount to an ongoing infringement of Kazeem’s constitutional right to personal liberty and render his challenge to the detention order nugatory.