184.5kg Cocaine Trial: KC Luxury Seeks Judge’s Recusal over Court Record Irregularities

Businessman and social media influencer, Afolabi Kazeem, popularly known as KC Luxury, standing trial over alleged 184.5 kilogrammes of cocaine trafficking and money laundering, has asked Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court in Lagos to recuse himself from the case over alleged irregularities in court records and his deteriorating health.

Kazeem, through his counsel, Chief Emefo Etudo, accused the court of failing to reflect its October 28, 2026 ruling on his client’s bail application in the record of proceedings and alleged that a reply affidavit filed by the defence had gone missing.

The application for the judge’s recusal followed the court’s refusal last Wednesday to grant Kazeem bail on medical grounds, with Justice Kakaki holding 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 withdrawal through Etudo, who appeared alongside Mrs Charity Etudo.

The senior lawyer told the court that repeated efforts to obtain a copy of the October 28 ruling from the court registry had proved unsuccessful.

According to him, the defence was informed that the ruling had yet to be signed by the judge, a development he said could prejudice his client’s right to appeal within the prescribed period.

Etudo also expressed concern over the alleged disappearance of a reply affidavit filed by the defence, questioning 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.”

He further criticised the Federal High Court’s inadequate recording facilities, arguing that the provision of verbatim recording equipment would ensure that statements, submissions and decisions made during proceedings were accurately captured.

Etudo maintained that the alleged discrepancies in the court records had further eroded his client’s confidence in the judicial process.

The lawyer also questioned the prosecution’s evidence, insisting that the documents tendered before the court did not establish a connection between the first, second and third defendants and the alleged offences.

He disclosed that he intended to file a separate application challenging the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence but wanted the court to first determine the recusal application.

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 failed to explain the absence of the first defendant.

Abu said the prosecution had six witnesses in court and was ready to commence the trial in compliance with the court’s earlier directive for accelerated hearing.

He also informed the court that he was served with the recusal application during the stand-down and argued that it was not ripe for hearing.

The prosecution requested five days to respond to the application instead of the seven days ordinarily allowed under the rules.

Abu further described allegations of judicial bias as serious, insisting that the court had been fair to all parties.

He argued that the trial had not commenced and that the refusal of bail could not, in itself, establish bias against the judge.

“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 involved an allegation of conspiracy among the defendants.

However, counsel to the second defendant, Augustine Audu, SAN, urged the court to hear and determine the recusal application before proceeding with the trial.

Audu, who confirmed that his client was also served with the application during the stand-down, said the pending proceedings had stalled the trial and undermined the purpose of the accelerated hearing order.

He 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 Kazeem.

According to him, his client should not continue to suffer the consequences of proceedings involving another defendant, particularly when he was willing to face trial and clear his name.

“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 argued that the conspiracy count did not prevent the prosecution from proceeding against some defendants while others were unavailable.

“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 submitted.

Audu also urged the court to consider bail for the second and third defendants, maintaining that they should not remain in custody while the first defendant’s application stalled the proceedings.

He, however, said he would not oppose the recusal application, noting that it was a matter between the first defendant and the prosecution.

Responding, Etudo said he had reluctantly filed the 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,” he said.

The defence counsel also raised fresh concerns about Kazeem’s health, disclosing that his condition had deteriorated.

To illustrate his concerns, 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 obtain medical treatment.

He said the court declined the application and the defendant died before the next adjourned date.

Etudo said the experience informed his apprehension about Kazeem’s deteriorating health and the possible consequences of keeping him in custody.

He maintained that his client was in a sorry state and no longer had confidence in the court.

Justice Kakaki adjourned the case until November 25, 2026, for the hearing of submissions on the application.