Court frees Popular celebrity, throws out NDLEA drug charges

Court frees Popular celebrity, throws out NDLEA drug charges

The Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi has discharged popular socialite and nightclub owner, Mike Nwalie, also known as Pretty Mike, alongside his club supervisor, Joachim Hillary, after upholding their no-case submissions in an alleged drug case.

Delivering judgment on Wednesday, Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case linking the defendants to the charges.

The judge held that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not meet the legal threshold required to sustain the allegations, describing the case as speculative.

The court found that the matter, at its highest, amounted to “mere suspicion” and lacked the “cogent and compelling evidence” needed to prove involvement in the alleged offences.

Following the ruling, the court upheld the no-case submission filed by defence counsel, Chikaosolu Ojukwu, and discharged both defendants without calling on them to enter a defence.

The duo had been arraigned by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency on a three-count charge bordering on alleged conspiracy, unlawful possession of hard drugs, and permitting the use of a nightclub for illicit drug activities.

The charges arose from an NDLEA raid on Proxy Lagos nightclub in Victoria Island on October 26, 2025, during which the agency claimed to have recovered 169 cylinders of nitrous oxide, commonly referred to as laughing gas, weighing 384.662 kilograms, alongside 200 grams of cannabis sativa.

The prosecution had alleged that the substances were intended for use at an illegal drug party and sought to link the defendants to their possession and storage, while also pushing for the forfeiture of the nightclub.

However, the defence argued that the prosecution failed to present credible and admissible evidence directly connecting the accused persons to the alleged offences.

Ojukwu maintained that the evidence was weak and inconsistent, insisting that “mere suspicion or circumstantial assertions without clear evidential linkage could not sustain a criminal charge.”

He further contended that the prosecution did not establish ownership, control, or knowledge of the substances by the defendants, thereby failing to meet the legal requirement for criminal liability.

The court agreed, holding that where no prima facie case is disclosed at the close of the prosecution’s case, it is bound to uphold a no-case submission and discharge the defendants.