N39bn Drug Trial: Defendant Seeks Judge’s Recusal Over Missing Affidavit

Businessman and social media influencer, Afolabi Kazeem Michael, popularly often known as KC Luxury, has requested a Federal High Court decide in Lagos to withdraw from his ongoing trial.

Michael, who’s standing trial over
alleged cocaine trafficking and cash laundering value about N39bn, accused the court docket of irregularities in its dealing with of proceedings.

Michael, by means of his lawyer, Emefo Etudo, on Monday, filed an software searching for the recusal of Justice Musa Kakaki, citing alleged discrepancies in court docket data, a lacking defence affidavit and considerations over his deteriorating well being.

The software was introduced earlier than the court docket after the decide, on October 28, 2026, rejected Kazeem’s request for bail on medical grounds.

At Monday’s proceedings, Micheal was absent from court docket, along with his lawyer informing the decide that his consumer had misplaced confidence within the court docket over what he described as irregularities surrounding the dealing with of paperwork and the recording of proceedings.

Etudo instructed the court docket that the October 28 ruling refusing his consumer’s bail software was but to be mirrored within the official document of proceedings.

He alleged that repeated efforts to acquire a duplicate of the ruling from the court docket registry had been unsuccessful, including that the defence was knowledgeable that the decide had not signed the choice.

According to him, the scenario may undermine his consumer’s constitutional proper to enchantment inside the prescribed interval.

The lawyer additionally raised considerations over an alleged lacking reply affidavit filed by the defence, questioning the protection and integrity of paperwork submitted earlier than the court docket.

He instructed the court docket, “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.”

Etudo additional faulted the Federal High Court’s lack of enough recording amenities, arguing that using verbatim recording gear would assist protect statements and choices made throughout proceedings.

He maintained that the alleged discrepancies had additional weakened his consumer’s confidence within the judicial course of.

The defence lawyer additionally questioned the prosecution’s proof, insisting that the paperwork offered earlier than the court docket didn’t set up a connection between the primary, second and third defendants and the alleged offences.

He mentioned he meant to file one other software difficult the sufficiency of the prosecution’s proof however urged the court docket to first decide the recusal request.

However, prosecution counsel, Ibrahim Abu, opposed the transfer to right away hear the appliance, arguing that the matter was scheduled for trial and that the defence had failed to elucidate why the primary defendant was absent.

Abu mentioned the prosecution had six witnesses in court docket and was ready to start the trial in step with the court docket’s earlier directive for an accelerated listening to.

He additionally requested 5 days to reply to the recusal software, which he mentioned was served on him throughout the court docket’s stand-down.

The prosecution counsel argued that allegations of judicial bias had been severe and insisted that the court docket had handled all events pretty.

He maintained that the refusal of Micheal’s bail software didn’t quantity to bias, stressing that the defence had the choice of interesting the choice or submitting one other bail software.

“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,” Abu mentioned.

Meanwhile, counsel to the second defendant, Augustine Audu, SAN, urged the court docket to find out the pending software earlier than continuing with the trial.

Audu, who mentioned his consumer was additionally served with the appliance throughout the stand-down, argued that the proceedings had been stalled by points involving the primary defendant, leaving the opposite defendants unsure about their destiny.

He urged the prosecution to think about amending the cost and separating the defendants to permit the second and third defendants to face trial independently.

“We do not want the fate of the second and third defendants to be tied to the first defendant, because we are stuck,” he mentioned.

The senior lawyer argued that the conspiracy cost didn’t stop the prosecution from continuing in opposition to some defendants whereas others had been unavailable.