NDLEA: Court Adjourns KC Luxury’s Detention Case

The Federal High Court in Lagos has adjourned the case involving detained businessman and social media influencer, Afolabi Kazeem Michael, popularly known as KC Luxury, until September 21, 2026.

Justice Friday Ogazi fixed the date on Wednesday to allow parties await the ruling of a sister court on an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Kazeem’s lawyer, Abdulakeem Labi-Lawal, SAN, told the court that although the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) secured an order to keep his client in custody for 30 days for further investigation, the order did not specifically require him to remain detained for the full period.

Labi-Lawal also argued that the NDLEA could release Kazeem on bail if the agency was satisfied with the progress of its investigation.

He said Kazeem had already challenged the court’s jurisdiction to issue the detention order, adding that the application had been argued and the parties were waiting for the ruling.

The lawyer asked Justice Ogazi to adjourn the case to give the parties time to respond to the processes filed before the court.

He added that the respondents had served their counter-affidavit on the defence team, giving the applicant five days to respond.

NDLEA counsel, Abu Ibrahim, did not oppose the request for an adjournment. He, however, explained that the 30-day remand order was obtained in August, before Kazeem approached the court seeking an order for his production.

Justice Ogazi subsequently adjourned the matter until September 21 for further proceedings.

Kazeem, through his lawyers led by Labi-Lawal, is challenging an August 20, 2026 ex parte order which authorized the NDLEA to keep him in custody for 30 days while investigating allegations of drug trafficking.

In Suit No. FHC/LAG/MISC/1199/2026, the defence is asking the court to set aside or discharge the order, arguing that no criminal charge has been filed against Kazeem.

The lawyers argued that the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction to try offences under the NDLEA Act is different from its power to issue a pre-charge remand order.

They maintained that the court’s power to try drug-related offences does not automatically give it the authority to remand a suspect who has not been charged simply to allow investigators more time to complete their work.

“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 also challenged the 30-day detention period, arguing that it is contrary to the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, 2015.

The lawyers relied on Sections 293 to 299 of the law, which set out the procedure for pre-charge remand.

They specifically cited Section 296(1), which provides that an initial remand order should not exceed 14 days.

According to the defence, the wording of the law leaves no room for a court to replace the 14-day limit with a 30-day detention order.

They argued that where investigators need more time to keep a suspect in custody, further judicial review is required instead of a single 30-day detention order.

Kazeem’s lawyers have also asked the court to shorten the time for hearing the application and bring forward the September 17 date earlier fixed for the review of his detention.

They argued that allowing the detention to continue could amount to a violation of Kazeem’s constitutional right to personal liberty and make his challenge to the detention order ineffective.