Court Adjourns KC Luxury Case to September 21 as Defence Challenges 30-Day Detention
Justice Friday Ogazi of the Federal High Court in Lagos has adjourned until September 21, 2026, further hearing of pending applications in the case involving detained businessman and social media influencer, Afolabi Kazeem Michael, popularly known as KC Luxury.
The adjournment followed submissions by Kazeem’s counsel, Abdulakeem Labi-Lawal, SAN, and counsel for the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), Abu Ibrahim, that the court should await the ruling of a sister court on an application challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, Labi-Lawal argued that although the NDLEA had obtained an order permitting it to keep Kazeem in custody for 30 days to facilitate further investigations, the order did not expressly require that he remain detained for the entire period.
The senior lawyer also submitted that the NDLEA could release Kazeem on bail if it was satisfied with the progress of its investigation.
Labi-Lawal told the court that his client had challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to issue the detention order and that the application had already been argued, with the parties awaiting the court’s ruling.
He subsequently urged Justice Ogazi to adjourn the matter to allow the parties to respond to processes already filed.
According to him, the respondents had served their counter-affidavit on the applicant’s legal team, giving the defence five days to file a response.
Ibrahim, counsel for the NDLEA, did not oppose the request for an adjournment. He, however, clarified that the 30-day remand order was obtained in August, before Kazeem approached the court seeking an order for his production.
Justice Ogazi thereafter adjourned the case until September 21 for further proceedings.
Kazeem, through his legal team led by Labi-Lawal, is challenging the legality of an August 20, 2026, ex parte order authorising his detention for an initial period of 30 days to allow further investigation into allegations of drug trafficking.
In Suit No. FHC/LAG/MISC/1199/2026, the defence is asking the court to set aside or discharge the detention order, arguing that no criminal charge has been filed against Kazeem.
The lawyers contend that the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction to try offences under the NDLEA Act is separate from its authority to issue a pre-charge remand order.
They argued that the court’s jurisdiction to try offences under the NDLEA Act does not automatically give it the power to remand an uncharged suspect solely to provide investigators with additional time to complete their investigations.
The defence further challenged the 30-day detention period, arguing that it violates provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
Relying on Sections 293 to 299 of the ACJA, the lawyers said the law provides a statutory framework for pre-charge remand and specifically limits an initial remand order to a period not exceeding 14 days under Section 296(1).
The defence argued that the wording of the provision leaves no discretion for a court to impose a 30-day detention period in the first instance. It maintained that where investigators require additional time to keep a suspect in custody, further judicial scrutiny is required rather than a single, uninterrupted 30-day detention order.
Kazeem’s lawyers have also asked the court to abridge the time for hearing their application and bring forward the September 17 date previously fixed for the review of the detention order.
They argued that allowing the detention to continue could amount to an ongoing violation of Kazeem’s constitutional right to personal liberty and could render his challenge to the detention order ineffective.
