The Federal High Court in Lagos has adjourned until September 21, 2026, further hearing in a suit filed by detained businessman and social media influencer, Afolabi Kazeem Michael, popularly known as KC Luxury, challenging his detention by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, NDLEA.
The adjournment followed submissions by counsel to Kazeem, Abdulakeem Labi-Lawal, SAN, and NDLEA counsel, Abu Ibrahim, that the court should await the ruling of a sister court on an application challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The case is being presided over by Justice Friday Ogazi.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, Labi-Lawal argued that although the NDLEA obtained an order permitting it to keep Kazeem in custody for 30 days for further investigation, the order did not expressly require that he remain detained for the entire period.
The lawyer further submitted that the agency could release his client on bail if it was satisfied with the progress of its investigation. He said Kazeem had already challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to issue the detention order and that parties were awaiting a ruling after arguments had been concluded.
Labi-Lawal also informed the court that the respondents had served their counter-affidavit on the applicant’s legal team. He said the applicant had five days to respond and urged Justice Ogazi to allow the parties time to address the processes already filed.
Ibrahim, representing the NDLEA, did not object to the request for an adjournment. However, he clarified that the 30-day remand order was obtained in August, before Kazeem subsequently approached the court seeking an order for his production.
Justice Ogazi consequently adjourned the matter until September 21 for further proceedings.
Kazeem, through his lawyers, is challenging the legality of an ex-parte order issued on August 20, 2026, which authorised his detention for 30 days in the first instance to allow further investigation into allegations of drug trafficking.
In Suit No. FHC/LAG/MISC/1199/2026, his lawyers are asking the court to set aside or discharge the order, arguing that no criminal charge has been filed against him.
The defence contends 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. According to the lawyers, jurisdiction to try a person who has been charged does not automatically give the court power to remand an uncharged suspect simply to provide investigators additional time.
They have also challenged the 30-day detention period, arguing that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. The defence maintains that continued detention for investigative purposes requires further judicial scrutiny rather than a single uninterrupted 30-day order.
Kazeem’s lawyers have also asked the court to abridge the time for hearing the application and bring forward the September 17 date earlier fixed for review of the detention order. They argued that continued detention could amount to an infringement of his constitutional right to personal liberty and potentially render his challenge ineffective.
