Court Dismisses Drug Charges Against Pretty Mike, Grants No-Case Judgment

After upholding their no-case submissions, Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Wednesday released well-known socialite and nightclub owner Mike Nwalie, also known as Pretty Mike, as well as Joachim Hillary, the club’s supervisor.

In his decision, Justice Alagoa concurred with Chikaosolu Ojukwu’s (SAN) defense team, finding that the prosecution’s evidence fell short of the minimal standard necessary to support the charges.

The court concluded that the case lacked the convincing evidence required to connect the defendants to the alleged drug activities and, at its best, amounted to mere suspicion.

Without requesting that Pretty Mike and Hillary present their defense, the judge dismissed them both and upheld the no-case submission.

The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), had earlier arraigned Pretty Mike, who is the owner of Proxy Lagos nightclub in Victoria Island, and Mr Hillary, on a three-count charge bordering on alleged conspiracy, unlawful possession of hard drugs, and knowingly allowing the use of the club premises for illicit drug activities.

The charges stemmed from an NDLEA raid on the nightclub on October 26, 2025, during which the agency claimed to have recovered 169 cylinders of nitrous oxide, commonly known as laughing gas, weighing 384.662 kilograms, as well as 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.

It also described the nightclub as an instrumentality of crime and pushed for its forfeiture.

After both defendants entered not-guilty pleas, Justice Allagoa granted bail of ₦50 million each, with two responsible sureties in like sum.
The prosecution then opened its case by presenting its witnesses.

However, defense attorney Chikaosolu Ojukwu (SAN) filed a no-case submission at the end of the prosecution’s case, claiming that the prosecution had not produced reliable and admissible evidence that connected the defendants to the alleged crimes.

He argued that the evidence was inadequate, contradictory, and legally insufficient to support calling the defendants to present their defense.

He believed that a criminal charge could not be supported by mere suspicion or circumstantial claims without a clear evidentiary connection.

The defense further contended that the prosecution did not meet the legal standard necessary to prove criminal liability because it did not prove the defendants’ ownership, control, or knowledge of the alleged substances.