Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Lagos, Nigeria — New revelations have emerged in the high-profile Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) prosecution of Jude Chigozie Okoye, former manager of the iconic music duo P-Square, with testimony in court this week implicating his **wife in alleged financial misconduct tied to an over $1 million fraud case. The ongoing trial, which has captivated public attention and drawn in key figures from Nigeria’s entertainment and legal communities, was heard before Justice Rahman Oshodi at the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja.
The case stems from allegations that Mr Okoye and his company, Northside Music Limited, orchestrated a scheme to divert substantial proceeds from the duo’s music royalties, leading to a four-count charge of theft and unlawful enrichment exceeding $1 million and £34,537.59. Okoye has consistently pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Peter Okoye, the singer known as Mr P and one-half of the P-Square duo, is the first prosecution witness. During proceedings, he testified that the corporate structure of Northside Music Limited — the entity alleged to be central to the EFCC case — was dominated not by his brother alone but also by Jude Okoye’s wife, Ifeoma Okoye, who he said owns 800,000 shares in the company. He described this shareholding as part of the broader pattern of financial arrangements that he believes facilitated the alleged diversion of funds without the consent or participation of both Paul and Peter Okoye.
The testimony paints a complex internal dispute that extends beyond standard business disagreements, touching on family finances, corporate governance and alleged exploitation of business structures to sidestep accountability. Mr P told the court that he and his twin brother Paul Robinson Okoye (the other half of P-Square) had originally contributed to the music enterprise through Northside Entertainment Limited, but that a separate entity — Northside Music Limited — was later registered and controlled in a way that excluded them from core financial decisions. According to Peter Okoye, this entity was used to receive and manage royalty payments from digital platforms, while he and his twin brother were shut out of access.
The prosecution maintains that evidence gathered during EFCC investigations supports the allegation that hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue were routed into accounts linked to Northside Music Limited and then used in ways that deprived the rightful owners of their share of earnings. Peter Okoye explained to the court that his petition to the EFCC in January 2024 was driven by concern over unexplained discrepancies in royalty payments and the discovery of corporate arrangements that appeared to vest significant ownership and control with Mr Okoye’s wife.
Defence counsel, Clement Onwuenwunor SAN, has countered the allegations in aggressive cross-examination, challenging the admissibility of certain documents and pushing back against claims that the structures of the company were designed for unlawful diversion of funds. Earlier in the trial, Onwuenwunor also accused Mr P of providing misleading evidence to the EFCC, characterising some testimony as inconsistent or exaggerated — a common defence tactic in high-profile financial disputes involving close family relationships.
The court’s ruling on document admissibility this week saw key evidence from the Corporate Affairs Commission challenged by defence lawyers, who argued that certified copies of company records were not presented in proper form. The judge ultimately rejected certain documents, holding that they did not meet strict legal standards despite indicating their origin in publicly available records.
As the trial progresses, the involvement of Jude Okoye’s wife as a majority shareholder in the implicated company has added a new dimension to proceedings, prompting observers to note how the intersecting issues of entertainment business structures, family dynamics and anti-graft enforcement may influence broader perceptions of corporate transparency in Nigeria’s creative industries.
The case is now adjourned for continuation of the trial, with further hearings scheduled for February 20 and 27, 2026, underscoring the lengthy and closely watched nature of the legal battle.
Legal experts following the case say the trial could set important precedents for how rights to royalties and corporate ownership disputes are adjudicated where alleged financial misconduct intersects with the country’s anti-corruption laws. For the entertainment sector, the proceedings represent a rare and detailed examination of how music business revenues are managed — and potentially mismanaged — when disputes arise within family-run creative enterprises.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments