The latest development in the long-running dispute involving P-Square brothers Peter, Paul and Jude Okoye has triggered renewed debate over the importance of hearing both sides of a contentious story before reaching conclusions.
Peter Okoye, popularly known as Mr P, disclosed during proceedings at the Federal High Court in Lagos that he had received more than $800,000 in royalties from the French music rights organisation SACEM in connection with P-Square’s musical works. The revelation was made while he was being cross-examined by Clement Onwuewunor, SAN, counsel to his elder brother, Jude Okoye.
The disclosure has attracted particular attention because of statements attributed to Peter during his earlier tell-all series concerning the financial affairs of P-Square. In Part 3 of the series, Peter discussed royalty payments and alleged that significant sums had been diverted without his knowledge. Reports of the series also show that he discussed dollar-denominated royalties and claimed that more than $1.2 million had been paid into Northside Music between 2017 and 2023.
Against that background, VeryDarkMan, who had previously commented on the dispute, questioned how people who had quickly formed opinions about the matter would react to Peter’s latest testimony. He argued that the development demonstrates the danger of relying exclusively on one side of a complicated dispute.
“This case will teach the whole country a lesson about the danger of a one-sided story,” he said, while encouraging the public to examine the Certified True Copies (CTC) and broader court records rather than relying solely on social-media narratives.
The court testimony itself contains important nuances.
Peter acknowledged receiving the approximately $800,000 in SACEM royalties but maintained that the money belonged to him and his twin brother, Paul Okoye. He also told the court that none of the money was given to Jude, insisting that “the money was for the artistes.” He further acknowledged that Jude had previously received a quarter of his SACEM share but disputed claims that Jude was subsequently entitled to quarterly payments after a 2022 reconciliation.
Another significant point raised during cross-examination concerned the royalty records. Peter had previously claimed that Jude took more than three months to provide backend royalty information after he requested it in 2022. However, Jude’s counsel put to him that the request was made on October 16, 2022, and that the documents were supplied six days later, on October 22. When asked to produce evidence showing that he had made the request earlier, Peter acknowledged that he could not provide a message, email or other documentary proof and said he could not recall.
The proceedings are part of an ongoing criminal case in which the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has charged Jude Okoye and his company, Northside Music Limited, over alleged financial offences involving approximately N1.3 billion and $1 million. Jude has pleaded not guilty to the charges. The allegations remain allegations unless and until determined by the court.
Peter also maintained in court that Jude was not a member of P-Square, while acknowledging that his elder brother played a role in the group’s history, including directing some of its music videos. He said he and Paul composed, wrote and produced the group’s songs.
For many observers, the central lesson from the latest proceedings may therefore extend beyond the personalities involved. Financial disputes involving music royalties, management agreements, copyright, publishing and catalogue ownership can be highly complex. Public statements, social-media videos and emotional narratives may present only part of the underlying documentation.
Rather than rushing to judgment, the unfolding court proceedings provide an opportunity to examine the evidence, agreements, payment records and testimony in their proper context.
As the saying goes, there are always two sides to a story—and sometimes, as this case demonstrates, considerably more paperwork behind both sides.
The court has adjourned further hearing to December 8 and 9, 2026.
0 Comments