By Gbenga Ogunbufunmi
Lagos Socialite and Social Media Influencer Mr Afolabi Kazeem Michael who is standing trial alongside two other defendants before Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court, Lagos on trafficking 184.5 Kg of cocaine yesterday challenges the interim order obtained from the court over his properties.
The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency NDLEA, through its lawyer Mr Abu Ibrahim has arraigned Mr Afolabi Kazeem Michael and two others , Boniface Freeman Ochoche Sule and
Ikechukwu Ekugo Patriarch before Justice Musa Kakaki on a twenty two counts of trafficking 184.5 kg of cocaine.
Consequently the anti- narcotic agency filed and obtained an interim forfeiture order over his properties and assets on the 25th of September, 2026.
Following the grant of the interim order of forfeiture, justice Kakaki ordered NDLEA to publish the order in a national daily and fixed today for reports of compliance.
However, when the matter came up today, the prosecutor Mr Abu Ibrahim told the court that the business of the day is for the reports of compliance,.
Abu in his submission said that on the 25th of September 2026, the court granted a preservative order upon an exparte application filed by the prosecution and as part of the order granted, the court directed the publication of the order and adjourned till today for the reports. That is why we are here today.
However, counsel to Afolabi and other defendants, Chief Emefo Etudor objected and told the court that he had an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court over the interim order of forfeiture, Etudor said this take precedents over all other applications before the court on the matter.
“My lord i was shown the publication made by NDLEA about three days ago and has to rush and file our objection on jurisdiction yeaterday.’
Etudor said that what the prosecutor was trying to do is to make submission on the foundation of a matter that is being challenged.
They had obtained an order without given us opportunity to defend ourselves and property, section 36 of the constitution guarantee the right to property which can not be taken away without being given an opportunity to defend oneself and that is what NDLEA has done in this case , “they went behind to obtained an order taking the defendant’s properties and assets without given him opportunity to defend himself, that can not stand my lord.”
After listen to parties Justice Kakaki said he would hear both the application chellenging the jurisdiction of the court as well as other pending applications together.
Etudor had in an affidavit filed before the court averred that Afolabi Kazeem is standing trial in a criminal case before Honorable Justice Musa Kakaki alongside Boniface Freeman Ochoche Sule and Ikechukwu Ekugo Patriarch in case number FHC/LAG/CR/755/2026.
He stated that Afolabi is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved and that he is entitled to the possession and ownership of properties under the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and any other law stating otherwise is null and void to the extent of their inconsistency.
On THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The defendant counsel raised the question wether the exparte order of 25/09/26 can stand as the hearing and determination of the application exparte dated 25/09/26 which was made exparte when it was supposed to be on notice and when it has led to denial of fair hearing and miscarriage of justice?
Wether the court jurisdiction to make the exparte order of 25/09/26 when the proceedings of 25/09/26 is a nullity?
Can the exparte order of 25/09/26 stand when the applicant/respondent failed to make full disclosure of material facts or misrepresented facts or lied to obtain the order?
Whether the court has jurisdiction?
“Can the exparte order of 25/09/26 stand as the hearing and determination of the application exparte dated 25/09/26 which was made exparte when it was supposed to be on notice and when it has led to denial of fair hearing and miscarriage of justice?”
Raising the issue of denial of fair hearing, Etudor said fair hearing is traceable to the principle of natural Justice and that natural justice originates from the principle of natural law theory.
He added that there is no single definition of what natural justice entails. However, one can say that natural justice means a man’s right to fair and just treatment at the hands of rulers or agents.
The concept of Natural justice is embedded in the two pillars of justice which are (audi alteram partem) and (nemo judex in cause sua) The former means that a decision affecting the rights of the citizens must not be made without first giving those affected a fair hearing.
Whenever either of the aphorism is breached, fair hearing has been violated. Where either maxim is deservedly invoked key criteria for assessing their breach or observance is the impression that would be given to an impartial even if hypothetical, observer who witnessed the proceedings.
He said Section 36(1) of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria states as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constructed in such a manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.”
“Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and People Rights establishes a similar though by no means identical, stipulation as section 36(1) of the Constitution: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard…….”
The constitutional guarantee of fair hearing and its interplay with the common law principles of natural justice.
He added that the law is well settled that a Court or Tribunal ought to hear both sides in the case before reaching a decision which may be prejudicial to any party in the case. A hearing cannot be said to be fair if any of the parties is refused a hearing or denied the opportunity to be heard, present his case or call witnesses.
The defence counsel said that on 25/9/26 no hearing notice was served on the persons of Afolabi as he was not put on notice nor served hearing notice, but was deliberately kept away from the case by NDLEA during the proceedings.
Etudor said such proceedings was a nullity and the order of 25/09/26 ought to be discharged.
The effect of a breach of the right to fair hearing, if made out, would almost invariably render such proceedings and resultant decision a nullity.
He added that It is the law that if an order of court is a nullity it can be set aside without much ado.
About The Author
