Nigerian singer Peter Okoye has rejected media reports claiming the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) stated it lacks evidence to support his allegations that his brothers fraudulently withdrew $800,000 from their joint company account. The artist, who performs as Mr P, described the coverage as jokes and propaganda on his social media platforms.
Peter disputed claims that a court session occurred where an EFCC investigator made such statements. According to him, there was never a court session where this claim by the EFCC investigator was made, directly contradicting multiple media reports about proceedings at Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja on Friday, November 28.
Multiple Nigerian news outlets reported that EFCC counsel Mohammed Bashir informed Justice Rahman Oshodi that the commission could not validate Peter’s $800,000 claim, stating the agency does not have evidence and advising that Peter should prove it himself. The reports emerged following what journalists described as resumed cross examination in the ongoing fraud trial.
Peter had testified on May 23, 2025, that fresh financial records revealed Jude and Paul withdrew and shared more than $800,000 between March 2023 and October 2024, though he later altered his timeline under cross examination, admitting the withdrawals may have occurred between 2013 and 2014 instead. The timeline revision occurred during questioning by defence counsel Clement Onwuenwunor.
The case began in 2024 when Peter petitioned the EFCC, accusing Jude of diverting funds belonging to P-Square, operating 47 undeclared bank accounts and manipulating the shareholding structure of Northside Entertainment Ltd, a company jointly owned by the brothers. The EFCC later arraigned Jude and Northside Music Ltd on charges related to alleged mismanagement of over $1 million, £34,537.59, and suspected money laundering through a bureau de change.
The defence also disputed Peter’s claim that Jude operated 47 bank accounts, with Bashir denying the EFCC possessed such documents and the defence tendering Corporate Affairs Commission records contradicting Peter’s claim of an 80 percent stake in the company. These contradictions emerged during testimony meant to support the fraud allegations.
Peter further claimed he only discovered the existence of another company, Northside Music Ltd, in 2024 after singer Cynthia Morgan sent him a contract on Northside Entertainment letterhead, noting albums were credited to Northside Inc even though the contract referenced Northside Music. This testimony addressed questions about his awareness of the company’s operations.
Justice Oshodi declined to order Peter and the EFCC to provide documents about the alleged accounts, advising the defence to file a formal application instead. The judge adjourned proceedings to December 12, 2025, for continuation of the trial.
The Okoye family dispute has fractured relationships within the once united musical dynasty. Paul Okoye sided with their elder brother Jude and unfollowed Peter on social media, with their music activities together stopping and Paul sharing cryptic posts online directed at Peter. The twins have not been on speaking terms since Peter began testifying against Jude in court.
The rift also strained relationships between their wives, as Peter’s wife Lola aligned herself with Paul’s former wife Anita Okoye, with both women seen taking pictures and going on outings together. The family divisions extend beyond the legal proceedings into personal relationships.
Jude was granted bail of N50 million on March 6, 2025, after being arraigned on March 4 on four counts relating to alleged stealing and conversion of royalties from music digital distribution and publishing. The charges center on payments from Lex Records Limited for digital distribution that allegedly deprived Peter of his rightful share.
The Okoye brothers first separated in 2017 following disagreements about Jude’s role as their manager. They reconciled in November 2021 and held their first headline concert together in December that year. However, Paul confirmed in August 2024 that P-Square no longer exists as a group, claiming his twin brother was behind his arrest by the EFCC.
Peter’s social media response suggests he believes the court reports misrepresent what actually occurred during proceedings. His characterization of the coverage as propaganda indicates he feels media outlets are deliberately distorting the legal proceedings, though journalists from multiple publications attended and reported on the November 28 session.
The divergence between Peter’s account and media reports raises questions about what transpired during the court hearing. While multiple credible Nigerian news organizations published similar accounts of the EFCC counsel’s statements, Peter maintains no such session occurred. This discrepancy could stem from different interpretations of legal proceedings or disputes about what was actually said in court.
The ongoing trial has become one of Nigeria’s most prominent entertainment industry legal battles. P-Square ranked among Africa’s most successful music groups before their split, with millions of fans across the continent and international recognition. Their public family dispute and legal proceedings have attracted significant media attention and public interest.
The case highlights tensions that can arise when family members operate business ventures together, particularly in the entertainment industry where royalty streams, intellectual property rights and company ownership structures can prove complex. Questions about fund management, shareholding percentages and corporate governance have dominated the legal proceedings.
Peter’s petition to the EFCC represented a dramatic escalation of what began as internal family disagreements about business management. By involving law enforcement and pursuing criminal charges rather than civil remedies, the dispute transformed from a private matter into a public legal battle with potential criminal consequences for Jude.
The EFCC’s involvement reflects the commission’s mandate to investigate financial crimes including fraud, money laundering and misappropriation of funds. However, the agency’s reported statement that it cannot provide evidence for Peter’s specific $800,000 withdrawal claim suggests complexities in substantiating some allegations with documentary proof.
Defence counsel has aggressively challenged Peter’s testimony, pointing to inconsistencies in timelines, contradictions with official records and changes in his statements under cross examination. These challenges form part of the defence strategy to undermine the prosecution’s case and demonstrate reasonable doubt about the allegations.
The case continues to unfold as both sides present evidence and testimony. With proceedings adjourned until mid December, additional revelations may emerge as the trial progresses. The outcome will significantly impact not only the Okoye family’s relationships but also set precedents for how similar entertainment industry disputes are handled legally.
Industry observers note that the public nature of the proceedings serves as a cautionary tale for artists and managers about the importance of clear contracts, transparent accounting and proper corporate governance. The dispute demonstrates how business disagreements between family members can escalate when trust breaks down and formal documentation proves inadequate or contested.
