P-Square: Beyond The Music, The Money, The Family and The Questions That remain Unanswered

PART 2

PETER’S SIDE: “I DISCOVERED THINGS I DID NOT KNOW”

Peter Okoye’s position is perhaps the most detailed publicly documented side of the current dispute.

According to Peter, he became increasingly concerned about the financial structure surrounding P-Square and the companies connected to the group.

One of his most serious allegations involved a company called Northside Music Limited.

Peter said he discovered that the company had been registered with Jude and Jude’s wife, Ifeoma, as directors.

According to Peter’s account, he questioned why a company with a similar name was involved in the music business and why he was allegedly unaware of some of the arrangements.

Peter’s argument was essentially this:

If P-Square’s legitimate business was being handled through its established structure, why was another company with a similar name involved in the music business?

And why was he allegedly unaware of it?

These questions became part of the foundation of his complaint to the EFCC.

Peter alleged that royalties belonging to P-Square had been diverted through the other company.

He also alleged that he had been denied access to financial information and that attempts to value or sell the P-Square catalogue raised questions about the underlying figures.

These are serious allegations.

But they remain allegations unless established by the courts.

THE EFCC CASE CHANGED EVERYTHING

The disagreement stopped being merely a family argument when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission became involved.

Jude Okoye and Northside Music Limited were charged in relation to allegations involving approximately ₦1.38 billion, $1 million and £34,537.59.

Jude pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The case remains before the courts.

Peter subsequently testified and gave detailed evidence about the financial arrangements surrounding P-Square.

He told the court about his concerns regarding the group’s accounts and the corporate structures surrounding the business.

He also alleged that money had been used to acquire property, including a property in Parkview Estate, Ikoyi.

Again, these are matters contained in allegations and court proceedings, not findings of guilt.

Jude remains entitled to the presumption of innocence unless and until a court determines otherwise.

BUT PETER’S OWN TESTIMONY CREATED ANOTHER QUESTION

This is where the story becomes more complicated.

During cross-examination, Peter reportedly admitted that he was a co-signatory to the Northside Entertainment Limited account.

That admission was significant because earlier testimony had suggested that Jude had sole control of the company’s account.

When confronted with bank mandates, Peter acknowledged that both he and Paul were also signatories.

Peter maintained that although he was a signatory, he personally did not operate the account or sign cheques.

This does not automatically disprove Peter’s broader allegations.

But it does introduce an important question:

How much did Peter and Paul actually know about the financial structure of their own business?

That question is central to understanding the dispute.

PAUL OKOYE’S SIDE IS VERY DIFFERENT

Paul’s position has been much closer to Jude.

When Jude’s legal troubles intensified, Paul publicly defended his elder brother.

Paul argued that Peter was responsible for putting Jude through the legal crisis and made it clear that he intended to stand by his brother.

Paul also suggested that if Jude was guilty, then the situation could not simply be separated from the other people involved in the business because all three brothers were connected to the operation.

That position tells us something important.

Paul does not appear to see the dispute simply as:

Peter versus Jude.

Instead, he sees the entire business arrangement as something in which all three brothers participated.

That is a fundamentally different interpretation of the story.