Court Clears Pretty Mike Of Drug Charges, Upholds No-Case Submission

Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Wednesday discharged and popular socialite and nightclub owner, Mike Nwalie, popularly known as Pretty Mike, alongside the club’s supervisor, Joachim Hillary, after upholding their no-case submissions.

In his ruling, Justice Alagoa agreed with the defence led by Chikaosolu Ojukwu (SAN), holding that the prosecution’s evidence did not meet the minimum standard required to sustain the charges.

The court found that the case, at its highest, amounted to mere suspicion and lacked the cogent and compelling evidence necessary to link the defendants to the alleged drug activities.

The judge upheld the no-case submission and discharged both Pretty Mike and Hillary without calling on them to enter their defence.

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, at the close of the prosecution’s case, defence counsel, Chikaosolu Ojukwu (SAN), filed a no-case submission, arguing that the prosecution failed to provide credible and admissible evidence directly linking the defendants to the alleged offences.

He contended that the evidence led was weak, inconsistent, and insufficient in law to warrant the defendants being called upon to open their defence.

According to him, mere suspicion or circumstantial assertions without clear evidential linkage could not sustain a criminal charge.

The defence further argued that the prosecution failed to establish ownership, control, or knowledge of the alleged substances by the defendants, thereby falling short of the legal threshold required to prove criminal liability.

Relying on provisions of criminal procedure, counsel maintained that where no prima facie case is disclosed at the close of the prosecution’s case, the court is duty-bound to uphold a no-case submission and discharge the defendants.