Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the interim forfeiture of Proxy Lagos Night Club, owned by Lagos socialite Mike Eze Nwalie Nwogu, popularly known as Pretty Mike, over allegations linked to drug-related offences.

The property, located at No. 7 Akin Adesola Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, was directed to be forfeited temporarily on Tuesday after the court considered an ex parte application moved by Barrister Buhari Abdullahi, counsel to the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). The motion, marked FHC/L/MISC/1161/2025, sought the forfeiture order pending investigations.

Listed as respondents in the matter are Mike Nwalie, also known as Pretty Mike, and Joachim Hillary.

Barrister Abdullahi informed the court that the request was made under Sections 3 (c) & (f), 31(a), 32(a)(d), 33, 34 and 36 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, Cap. N30, Laws of the Federation 2004; Section 44(2)(k) of the 1999 Constitution; and Order 26, Rules 8 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009, as well as the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

He asked the court to grant “an order of interim forfeiture in favour of the Federal Government of Nigeria and in Custody of The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency of a property situates at No. 7 Akin Adesola Street, Victoria Island, Lagos (Proxy Lagos Night Club) used as an instrumentality of drug dealing and drug abuse of 169 cylinders (384. 662 kilograms) of Nitrous Oxide (Laughing Gas) a dangerous substance of abuse and 200 grams of Cannabis Sativa, narcotic drug pending the conclusion of investigation.”

He further requested “an order suspending all activities of Proxy Lagos Night Club situates at No. 7 Akin Adesola Street, Victoria Island, Logos, pending the conclusion of drug investigation. And for such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the Circumstances.”

The NDLEA counsel explained that the club was being used as a facility for storage, concealment, and abuse of 169 cylinders (384.662 kilograms) of Nitrous Oxide and 200 grams of Cannabis Sativa.

He also told the court that the substances were prepared for a large-scale drug-party event, which prompted the agency’s action. According to him, the club served as an instrumentality for drug crime and was therefore subject to forfeiture under existing laws.

Abdullahi stated that an interim forfeiture order was a statutory requirement to secure the property while investigation continued.

He added that the motion was supported by a 22-paragraph affidavit sworn to by Deputy Commander of Narcotics, Nasiru Garba Bungudu.

After reviewing the motion, affidavit, and legal argument, Justice Kakaki ruled that the application had merit and granted the interim forfeiture order. The matter was adjourned to January 28, 2026, for report on investigation progress.

Part of the affidavit stated that intelligence received in October 2025 revealed preparations for a large drug-related gathering at the club. Surveillance allegedly confirmed the plans, leading NDLEA operatives to storm the venue on October 26, 2025, at around midnight.

The affidavit noted that during the raid, “169 cylinders (384. 662 kilograms) of Nitrous Oxide (Laughing Gas) dangerous substance and 200 grams of Cannabis Sativa were recovered.” Over 200 individuals, including the first and second respondents, were arrested.

It was further alleged that the seized cannabis tested positive and weighed 200 grams, while the Nitrous Oxide weighed 384.662 kilograms. The affidavit stated that the second respondent had been involved in drug distribution at the club and acted with the knowledge of the club’s owner.

According to the affidavit, “the landed property, was being used as an instrumentality for committing drug offence is liable to forfeiture to the Federal Government of Nigeria.”

The document asserted that the respondents’ actions constituted offences under the NDLEA Act, adding that the interim attachment was necessary to secure the property and prevent continued illegal activities. It also claimed that granting the application would not prejudice any party and served the interest of justice.

There is something quietly shifting in Nigeria’s political undercurrent, especially among those who once stood at the frontlines of revolution.

Omoyele Sowore, once the fiery voice of Revolution Now, represented the restless conscience of Nigeria’s youth. His words were blunt, his courage consistent, his energy contagious. He demanded accountability and envisioned a reformed, united Nigeria where leadership was answerable to the people. But time, pressure, and politics test even the boldest voices. In recent years, Sowore’s radical posture seems to have softened. What was once open defiance has become more calculated. His critics call it compromise; his defenders call it strategy.

Then came the curious twist: Sowore aligning himself with the call for the release of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). On the surface, it looked like a humane and patriotic act, defending the right of another citizen to fair treatment. But symbolically, it carried a deeper contradiction.

Sowore’s revolution was always about fixing Nigeria. Kanu’s mission, by contrast, has been to leave it. One advocates reform through unity, the other through separation. Yet here they stand, momentarily aligned.

To understand how unusual this is, it helps to remember that Nigeria’s history is filled with such uneasy friendships. The country has always been a patchwork of opposing interests that occasionally find reason to clasp hands, even if briefly.

History’s Reminder: When Opposites Collide

In the early 1960s, shortly after independence, Nnamdi Azikiwe’s National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) entered a partnership with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa’s Northern People’s Congress (NPC). It was a marriage between the progressive South and the conservative North, between those who envisioned a united, modern Nigeria and those who preferred to maintain regional dominance and autonomy. For a moment, it worked. Azikiwe became Governor-General and Balewa, Prime Minister. Nigeria stood tall before the world, appearing united. Yet beneath the surface, distrust simmered. Each camp saw the other as using the alliance for political convenience, not national vision. Within a few years, the partnership collapsed, leaving behind a bitter legacy of suspicion that still echoes today.

A similar scene replayed in the Second Republic. Shehu Shagari’s National Party of Nigeria (NPN) and Nnamdi Azikiwe’s Nigeria Peoples Party (NPP) tried to form a coalition that many hailed as a symbol of reconciliation and national unity. But the honeymoon ended quickly. The NPP accused its partner of marginalization and betrayal. The alliance dissolved almost as quickly as it was formed, and the country soon descended into another cycle of political distrust and military takeovers.

What both alliances had in common was not just the ideological mismatch, but the imbalance of power. Each time, the side driven by principle was overshadowed by the one driven by pragmatism. The partnership survived only as long as it served political convenience.

Connecting It to the Present

This is why the Sowore and Kanu alignment feels both familiar and fragile. They may not have signed a formal political pact, but their public alignment carries a weight of symbolism. One represents reform through unity; the other, liberation through separation. Both share anger at the system, but their end goals are worlds apart.

In today’s digital era, alliances form faster and travel farther than in the 1960s or 1980s. Public sentiment moves with hashtags, and solidarity can trend before it matures. Sowore’s support for Kanu’s release may have begun as a human rights gesture, yet it also introduces him to a new audience, one deeply emotional, regionally rooted, and politically wary of the same system he seeks to reform. The question is whether such alignment strengthens both causes or blurs them. History suggests that in pairings like this, one voice eventually overpowers the other. The louder, more emotionally charged narrative becomes the dominant one. For Sowore, whose strength has always been moral clarity and national appeal, standing beside Kanu could risk diluting his revolutionary image into a regional or tribal conversation.

Yet, perhaps this is a sign of something more nuanced. Maybe it reflects a growing recognition that justice cannot be selective, that freedom for one region is incomplete without fairness for all. In that sense, Sowore’s stance could be seen as an evolution of his movement, one that transcends ideology and centers humanity.

Still, Nigeria’s political history offers a sober warning. Whenever opposites unite, the handshake usually hides a silent calculation. Motives differ, priorities conflict, and the partnership often fractures long before the mission is achieved. From Azikiwe and Balewa to Shagari and Zik, such alliances have rarely ended as they began.

The Waiting Question

So, what do we make of this latest alignment? A reformist calling for the freedom of a separatist is not new in world politics. History is full of idealists who joined hands, briefly, for a greater moral cause. But in Nigeria, where unity itself remains contested, such collaborations always carry deeper meaning.

Sowore and Kanu might prove history wrong. They might show that two opposing visions can still share a common moral ground. Or, like so many before them, they may become another example of how power and principle rarely coexist peacefully.

Either way, it’s a story worth watching, not for what it says about their politics today, but for what it might reveal about Nigeria’s political future.

So, what’s your take?

Is this the beginning of a broader civic awakening, or just another convenient alliance between incompatible ideals?

The European Union has restated its commitment to respecting Nigeria’s sovereignty and pledged continued cooperation with the country in areas such as peacebuilding, interfaith relations, and human rights promotion.

EU Ambassador to Nigeria and ECOWAS, Gautier Mignot, made the clarification in Lagos during an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria, NAN, where he addressed recent comments made about Nigeria by former United States President Donald Trump.

According to Mignot, the EU’s relationship with Nigeria is guided by its long-standing strategic partnership with the nation and is not influenced by the positions of other countries.

He said, “Our position is one of solidarity with Nigeria – solidarity with victims of violence, with authorities working to protect citizens, and with the Nigerian people who overwhelmingly desire peaceful coexistence beyond ethnic and religious divides.”

The ambassador emphasised that the EU and its member nations respect Nigeria’s sovereignty and acknowledge its constitutional commitment to religious neutrality.

He noted that the EU remains willing to strengthen cooperation with Nigeria in peace, security, and defence, while also engaging key actors including civil society organisations, traditional institutions, and religious leaders.

Mignot confirmed that the EU continues to implement peace and social cohesion programmes across Nigeria aimed at promoting harmonious living among citizens.

He added, “We also support programmes on deradicalisation, demobilisation and reintegration of ex-members of non-state armed groups in the North-East.”

The diplomat further stressed the EU’s commitment to safeguarding all communities in Nigeria, particularly minority groups, and upholding freedom of religion and belief.

Acknowledging challenges in the human rights space, Mignot said Nigeria has a legal foundation that guarantees fundamental liberties. “The situation is not perfect, as in any country, but there exists a constitutional basis for the protection of human rights. It is up to Nigerian authorities and society as a whole to uphold and strengthen this environment of peaceful coexistence,” he stated.

He explained that the EU collaborates closely with civil society organisations on initiatives aimed at fostering interfaith understanding and building stronger relations among religious communities.

Mignot added that EU support remains non-discriminatory and is designed to assist all victims of violence, regardless of the motives behind such incidents.

According to him, the union’s engagement with Nigeria remains stable and predictable, driven by “shared interest in a stable, prosperous, and democratic Nigeria,” rather than the actions or positions of other global actors.

Mignot also revealed that discussions between Nigeria and the EU on peace, security, and defence are expected to take place soon to further enhance bilateral cooperation.

He emphasised that the EU’s priority is to support Nigeria’s efforts toward peace and prosperity, noting that the country’s long-term progress “lies firmly in the hands of Nigerians themselves.”

His comments followed threats by former U.S. President Donald Trump, who recently suggested punitive measures against Nigeria over alleged anti-Christian violence and labelled the country a “Country of Particular Concern” in social media posts.