Businessman and social media influencer Afolabi Michael Kazeem, popularly known as KC Luxury, who is standing trial over alleged 184.5kg cocaine trafficking and money laundering, has asked Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court in Lagos to recuse himself from the case, citing alleged irregularities in court records and concerns about his health.
The application followed the court’s refusal last Wednesday to grant Kazeem bail on medical grounds. The judge held that the defendant had failed to establish special circumstances or provide sufficient evidence to justify his release.
At the resumed proceedings on Monday, Kazeem, who was absent from court, sought the judge’s recusal through his counsel, Chief Emefo Etudo, who appeared alongside Mrs Charity Etudo.
Etudo told the court that the record of proceedings did not reflect the ruling delivered on October 28, 2026, on his client’s bail application. He added that repeated efforts to obtain a copy of the ruling from the court registry had proved unsuccessful.
He said the defence had been informed that the judge had yet to sign the ruling, raising concerns that the delay could affect his client’s right to appeal within the prescribed period.
Etudo also alleged that a reply affidavit filed by the defence had gone missing, questioning the safety 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,” he said.
Etudo further criticised the Federal High Court’s lack of adequate recording facilities, arguing that verbatim recording equipment would ensure that statements and decisions made during proceedings were accurately captured.
He maintained that the discrepancies in the court records had further eroded his client’s confidence in the court.
Etudo also questioned the prosecution’s evidence, insisting that the documents presented before the court did not establish a connection between the first, second and third defendants and the alleged offences.
He said he intended to file a separate application challenging the sufficiency of the evidence but wanted the court to determine the recusal application first.
Opposing the request to take the application immediately, prosecution counsel Ibrahim Abu argued that the matter was scheduled for trial and that the defence had not explained the first defendant’s absence.
“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 the prosecution had six witnesses in attendance and was ready to commence the trial, as previously directed.
Abu, who said he was served with the application during the court’s stand-down, argued that it was not ripe for hearing and requested five days to respond instead of the seven days ordinarily allowed under the rules.
Opposing the application, Abu described allegations of judicial bias as serious and maintained that the court had been fair to all parties.
He argued that the trial had not commenced and that the refusal of a bail application could not, on its own, establish bias on the part of the court.
He said the defence had the option of appealing the bail decision or filing 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 also opposed the suggestion to sever the charges, arguing that the first count alleged a conspiracy involving the defendants.
Counsel to the second defendant, Augustine Audu (SAN), confirmed that his client had also been served with the application during the stand-down. He, however, urged the court to hear and determine it before proceeding with the trial.
Audu argued that the pending application had stalled proceedings and undermined the purpose of the order for an accelerated hearing.
He also urged the prosecution to amend the charge and separate the defendants to enable the second and third defendants to proceed with their trial independently of the first defendant.
“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 maintained that the conspiracy count did not prevent the prosecution from proceeding against some defendants while others were 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 further urged the court to consider bail for the second and third defendants, insisting that they should not remain in custody while the first defendant’s application stalled the trial.
Audu said his client was eager to face trial and clear his name, adding that the second defendant should not be made to bear the consequences of proceedings involving another defendant.
He also said he would not oppose the recusal application, noting that it concerned the first defendant and the prosecution.
Audu added that his client was languishing in custody despite being presumed innocent.
Responding, Etudo said he had reluctantly filed the recusal application 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 said.
He disclosed that Kazeem’s health had deteriorated and challenged the prosecution to verify his condition.
Etudo recounted 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 receive medical treatment.
According to him, the court refused the application, and the defendant died before the next adjourned date.
Etudo said the experience informed his concerns about Kazeem’s deteriorating health and the consequences of keeping him in custody.
He maintained that his client was in a sorry state and no longer had confidence in the court.
The prosecution maintained its readiness to proceed with the trial but requested five days to respond to the recusal application.
Justice Kakaki adjourned the case until November 25, 2026, for the hearing of submissions on the application.
