P-Square Fraud Trial: EFCC Denies Having Evidence to Support Peter Okoye’s $800,000 Allegation Against Jude and Paul

EFCC Disowns Peter Okoye's $800k Claim in P-Square Fraud Trial

 The ongoing legal battle involving the globally celebrated Nigerian music group P-Square has taken another dramatic twist as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) told a Lagos High Court that it does not possess any evidence backing the allegations made by Peter Okoye against his brothers, Jude and Paul. The sensational case, which has attracted mass public attention across Nigeria and beyond, revolves around conflicting accounts of alleged diversion of group funds, hidden bank accounts, and manipulation of company ownership structures within the P-Square brand.

How the P-Square Financial Dispute Began
In 2024, Peter Okoye, popularly known as Mr. P, submitted a formal petition to the EFCC. In that petition, he alleged that his elder brother and former manager, Jude Okoye, along with Paul (Rudeboy), fraudulently diverted $800,000 belonging to the P-Square group.

Peter also accused Jude and Paul of:
1. Operating 47 undeclared bank accounts linked to the group
2. Manipulating the shareholding structure of Northside Entertainment Ltd, the company jointly owned by the brothers.
3. Withholding revenue generated from group performances, endorsements, and intellectual property.

The petition triggered a full-scale EFCC investigation, eventually leading to the filing of charges against Jude Okoye over alleged financial irregularities in the management of the P-Square brand.
Since then, the case has moved through a series of complicated testimonies, counterclaims, and legal surprises.

Courtroom Drama: EFCC Says It Has No Evidence of $800,000 Withdrawal
During a resumed cross-examination at the Lagos High Court in Ikeja, the EFCC’s counsel, M.K. Bashir, made a revelation that sent shockwaves through the courtroom. When asked by Justice Rahman Oshodi to present evidence supporting Peter’s claim of an $800,000 withdrawal by Jude and Paul, Bashir said the commission could not produce any such proof.
His words were clear:

“We do not have it. It is his evidence. Let him prove it. I can’t give what I don’t have.”

This statement introduced a new layer of uncertainty and cast doubts on the strength of Peter’s allegations, especially since the EFCC had earlier filed charges based on his petition.

Peter’s Changing Timeline: From 2023–2024 to 2013–2014
Earlier in the proceedings, Peter testified that he had obtained fresh evidence showing that Jude and Paul allegedly withdrew and split over $800,000 between March 2023 and October 2024.
However, during cross-examination, the defense counsel, Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), confronted him with inconsistencies in his statements. In response, Peter modified his timeline, saying the alleged fraudulent withdrawal may have actually occurred between 2013 and 2014, not 2023–2024 as earlier claimed. This shift immediately raised questions about the accuracy of his assertions and the reliability of the evidence he claimed to possess.

The Controversial 47 Bank Accounts Claim
Another major point of contention was Peter’s claim that Jude operated 47 secret bank accounts tied to the group. Peter insisted during his testimony that the EFCC had the documents proving this. But the EFCC counsel openly denied possessing such records.
Bashir told the court:

“I do not have 47 bank accounts. It is one of the witness’s claims, but I do not have such a copy.”

This public contradiction widened the gap between Peter’s claims and the EFCC’s official position in the case. Defense Demands Evidence, but Judge Says No.
Following the conflicting statements, the defense asked the court to compel both Peter and the EFCC to produce the alleged bank account documents. However, Justice Oshodi refused the oral request, stating that the defense must file a formal application, since the documents being demanded were neither tendered before the court nor listed among admitted evidence. This ruling means the defense will have to take additional legal steps if it still wants the documents presented in court.

CAC Records vs Peter’s Claim on Northside Entertainment Ownership
The defense also challenged Peter’s testimony regarding the ownership structure of Northside Entertainment Ltd., the company once responsible for managing P-Square’s music operations.
Peter had insisted that Jude held 80% ownership, a claim he said he could prove.
But when the defense presented official records from the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), the documents reportedly contradicted Peter’s assertion. This contradiction further complicated Peter’s credibility in the ongoing legal tussle.

The Cynthia Morgan Angle: Peter Claims He Was Kept in the Dark
The case also touched on the controversial management of Nigerian dancehall singer Cynthia Morgan, formerly known as Madrina. Peter stated that he only found out about the existence of Northside Music in 2024 when Cynthia Morgan sent him her contract, which appeared on Northside Entertainment letterhead. He explained that although she signed her contract with Northside Music, her albums were reportedly credited to Northside Inc., another twist that suggested multiple overlapping company names within the Okoye family’s entertainment business.
According to Peter, these discoveries made him question the transparency and structure of the companies Jude managed.

The P-Square financial dispute has sparked heated debates across social media platforms. Fans of the iconic music group, who once dominated African pop culture with massive hits like “Do Me,” “Chop My Money,” and “No One Like You,” have expressed sadness, anger, and confusion.
Many Nigerians see the case as a painful reminder of how money can tear families apart, while others believe the legal process will finally reveal the truth behind years of internal conflicts that led to the group’s split.

After listening to the testimonies and arguments from all parties, Justice Rahman Oshodi adjourned the case to December 12, 2025, for continuation of trial.
The highly publicized case is expected to feature more witness examinations, presentation of additional evidence, and further cross-examinations as the court works toward uncovering the truth about the alleged diversion of P-Square funds.
See Also... Burna Boy Makes History as First Nigerian Artist with Five Grammy Album Nominations
The P-Square fraud trial remains one of the most talked-about entertainment-related legal battles in recent Nigerian history. With the EFCC denying possession of evidence that supports Peter Okoye’s allegations, the case has taken a dramatic turn, raising fresh questions about the credibility of the claims and the future direction of the trial. As Nigerians eagerly await the next hearing, one thing remains clear: the road to resolving the financial and emotional issues within the Okoye family is far from over.

By Primelineinfo