Justice Friday Ogazi of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has adjourned until September 21, 2026, further hearing in the case involving detained businessman and social media influencer, Afolabi Kazeem Michael, popularly known as KC Luxury.
The adjournment followed submissions by counsel to Kazeem, Abdulakeem Labi-Lawal, SAN, and counsel to the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, Abu Ibrahim, that the court should await the decision of a sister court on an application challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, Labi-Lawal told the court that although the NDLEA had secured an order permitting it to keep Kazeem in custody for 30 days while conducting further investigations, the order did not expressly direct that he must remain detained for the entire period.
The senior lawyer further argued that the NDLEA could release Kazeem on bail if the agency was satisfied with the progress of its investigation, stressing that the continued detention of his client was not necessarily required simply because a 30-day remand order had been granted.
Labi-Lawal also informed Justice Ogazi that Kazeem had challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to grant the detention order. He said the application had already been argued and that the parties were waiting for the court’s ruling.
He therefore urged the court to adjourn the proceedings to allow the parties respond properly to the processes that had already been filed in the matter.
The defence counsel told the court that the respondents had served their counter-affidavit on Kazeem’s legal team and that the applicant had five days within which to file a response.
Counsel to the NDLEA, Ibrahim, did not oppose the request for an adjournment. However, he clarified that the 30-day remand order was obtained in August, before Kazeem later approached the court seeking an order for his production.
Following the submissions from both sides, Justice Ogazi adjourned the matter until September 21, 2026, for further proceedings.
Kazeem, through his legal team led by Labi-Lawal, is challenging the legality of the August 20, 2026 ex-parte order which authorised the NDLEA to detain him for 30 days in the first instance while it continued investigations into allegations of drug trafficking.
The application, filed in Suit No. FHC/LAG/MISC/1199/2026, is asking the court to set aside or discharge the detention order, with the defence arguing that no criminal charge has been filed against Kazeem.
His lawyers are also challenging the basis upon which the Federal High Court exercised jurisdiction to make the pre-charge remand order. They argued that the court’s jurisdiction to try offences under the NDLEA Act is separate and distinct from its power to order the detention of a suspect who has not been charged.
According to the defence, the fact that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to try offences under the NDLEA Act does not automatically give it the power to remand an uncharged suspect simply to provide investigators with additional 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 questioned the 30-day duration of the detention order, arguing that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
Kazeem’s lawyers relied on Sections 293 to 299 of the ACJA, which establish the legal framework governing the remand of suspects who have not yet been charged.
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 wording of the law, particularly the use of “shall,” “not exceeding” and “in the first instance,” leaves no room for a court to replace the statutory maximum of 14 days with a 30-day detention period.
The lawyers further submitted that where investigators require more time to keep a suspect in custody, the law requires additional judicial scrutiny rather than allowing a single, uninterrupted 30-day detention order.
Kazeem’s legal team has also asked the court to abridge the time for hearing the application and bring forward the September 17 date earlier fixed for a review of the detention order.
The defence argued that allowing the detention to continue for an extended period could amount to an ongoing infringement of Kazeem’s constitutional right to personal liberty and could ultimately render his challenge to the detention order nugatory.
With the matter now adjourned to September 21, attention will remain focused on the court’s consideration of the jurisdictional challenge and the defence’s arguments over the legality and duration of the detention order.