Alleged cocaine haul: KC Luxury accuses NDLEA of denying him fair hearing

Afolabi Kazeem Michael, a Lagos-based socialite and social media influencer popularly known as KC Luxury, on Wednesday questioned the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Lagos to grant an interim forfeiture order over his properties and assets.

It would be recalled that KC Luxury is standing trial alongside two other defendants, Boniface Freeman Ochoche Sule and Ikechukwu Ekugo Patriarch, before Justice Musa Kakaki on a 22-count charge of trafficking 184.5kg of cocaine filed by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA).

Specifically, the NDLEA had, on 25 September 2026, obtained an ex parte interim forfeiture order over the identified properties and assets of the defendants.

Following the granting of the order, the judge directed the NDLEA to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national daily and adjourned the matter for a report on compliance.

At the resumption of the hearing, the NDLEA’s counsel, Abu Ibrahim, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for a report on compliance. He added that the court had, on 25 September 2026, granted the preservative order following an ex parte application filed by the prosecution.

However, counsel to the first defendant and the other defendants, Chief Emefo Etudor, objected, stating that he had filed an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction over the interim forfeiture order.

In his words: “My Lord, I was shown the publication about three days ago and had to rush to file our objection on jurisdiction.”

The senior lawyer contended that the application challenging the court’s jurisdiction took precedence over all other applications before it.

Etudor maintained that the prosecution had obtained the order without giving the defendants an opportunity to defend their properties.

According to him, “They had obtained an order without giving us an opportunity to defend ourselves and our property.

“Section 36 of the Constitution guarantees the right to property, which cannot be taken away without being allowed to defend oneself, and that is what NDLEA has done in this case.

“They went behind to obtain an order taking the defendant’s properties and assets without allowing him to defend himself. That cannot stand, My Lord.”

In an affidavit filed before the court, Etudor argued that Afolabi Kazeem Michael was presumed innocent until proven guilty and was entitled to the possession and ownership of property under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). He added that any law stating otherwise was null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution.

He argued that the right to a fair hearing was rooted in the principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause).

Etudor referenced Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, arguing that a hearing could not be considered fair if any party was denied the opportunity to be heard.

“On 25/9/26, no hearing notice was served on the 1st respondent/applicant. As the 1st respondent/applicant was not put on notice nor served with a hearing notice but was deliberately kept away from the case by NDLEA during the proceedings, said proceedings were a nullity and the order of 25/09/26 ought to be discharged,” he argued.

The defence lawyer insisted that if a court order was a nullity, it could be set aside without much ado and that the respondent would not be prejudiced by the granting of the application.

After listening to both parties, Justice Kakaki said he would hear the application challenging the court’s jurisdiction alongside the other applications.

Justice Kakaki adjourned the matter until 3 December 2026 for the hearing of the pending applications.