In a tense session at the Ikeja High Court, the defence counsel for Jude Okoye accused music star Peter Okoye of P-Square of misleading investigators in his ongoing fraud trial.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission charged Peter and his company, Northside Music Ltd., with four counts of fraud involving $767,544.15.
Peter pleaded not guilty when the charges were formally read before Justice Rahman Oshodi.
His evidence in chief, given on May 16, detailed how he believed his elder brother and former manager, Jude Okoye, misappropriated funds.
During cross-examination on Friday, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Clement Onwuenwunor challenged the accuracy of Peter’s testimony.
Onwuenwunor told the court that Peter’s statements to the EFCC were “riddled with inconsistencies and fabrications.”
The defence focused first on Peter’s claim of graduating from the University of Abuja.
Court records and EFCC documents show Peter described himself as a “graduate” in his written statement.
Onwuenwunor revealed that Peter actually dropped out of the university before earning a degree.
Confronted with this contradiction, Peter admitted under oath that he had only “attended” the institution.
The lawyer then turned to the question of bank signatory access at Northside Entertainment Ltd.
Peter had previously testified that Jude was the sole signatory and that he had no access to company funds.
The defence produced a signed bank mandate listing Jude as a Category A signatory and Peter and his twin brother Paul as Category B signatories.
Bank statements tendered to the court showed Peter personally withdrew large sums in naira and dollars.
Documents also proved that Jude made direct transfers to Peter’s personal accounts.
These records contradicted Peter’s sworn statement that he never benefited financially from the company.
Onwuenwunor next addressed Peter’s testimony on royalty payments from Mad Solutions.
Peter had claimed ignorance of the contract and alleged he received only $25,000 and $20,000 in royalties.
The defence countered this by submitting the Mad Solutions agreement signed by Jude, Peter, and Paul.
Payment records showed Peter actually received just $4,330.47 and $5,837.35 in his first two royalty disbursements.
The stark gap between the claimed and actual figures cast doubt on Peter’s credibility, the lawyer said.
“Peter’s testimony before the EFCC is riddled with lies and misrepresentations,” Onwuenwunor told the court.
He argued that the contradictions were too deliberate to be honest mistakes.
Justice Oshodi admitted several of the bank documents and EFCC statements into evidence.
The judge advised the defence to provide all documents to the prosecution to speed up the trial.
He set the next hearing dates for October 10 and 17, 2025.
The court’s schedule means the trial will span more than a year from arraignment to verdict.
The EFCC opened its case against Peter and Northside Music after tracing the disputed funds to the company’s account.
The agency alleges that Jude and Northside Entertainment dishonestly converted over three billion naira to personal use.
Peter’s company is accused of receiving large foreign exchange allocations improperly diverted by Jude.
In his initial testimony, Peter said he was defrauded by his elder brother, who handled all financial dealings.
That version of events shaped public perception of a family feud gone wrong.
P-Square rose to fame in the early 2000s under the management of Jude Okoye.
As one of Africa’s best-selling acts, the twins counted Grammy nominations and millions of album sales.
Their success depended on revenue from record deals, royalties, endorsements, and live performances.
Northside Music Ltd. managed the group’s business interests, signing deals with international distributors and streaming platforms.
The EFCC’s case hinges on proving that company revenues were diverted under false pretenses.
Peter’s defence now seeks to show that he did not rely solely on his brother for financial oversight.
By portraying himself as illiterate in paperwork, he implied lack of control over money matters.
The defence counsel called this tactic “an intentional effort to mislead investigators and the court.”
Legal experts say that proving wilful misrepresentation in cross-examination can weaken a defendant’s case.
They note that discrepancies between oral testimony and documentary evidence are highly damaging.
If the prosecution establishes that Peter lied under oath, it could lead to perjury charges.
Those charges carry heavy penalties on top of any fraud conviction.
Observers say the trial underscores the EFCC’s growing focus on entertainment industry fraud.
High-profile cases like this mark a shift toward tackling alleged corruption among celebrities.
