The ongoing legal battle between Jude Okoye, former manager of the defunct music group P-Square, and his brother, Peter Okoye (Mr. P), took a dramatic turn during a recent court hearing. Jude, along with his company Northside Music Limited, is facing charges of theft and conversion of royalties amounting to over $1 million and £34,000, brought forth by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Peter, a key witness in the case, faced intense cross-examination by Jude’s counsel, Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), who accused him of deliberately misleading the EFCC with a series of false and contradictory statements aimed at damaging Jude’s reputation.
The defense meticulously dissected Peter’s testimony, highlighting numerous inconsistencies and alleged fabrications. A key point of contention revolved around Peter’s educational background. While initially claiming to be a graduate of the University of Abuja in his EFCC statement, Peter was forced to admit under cross-examination that he had not completed his studies there. This discrepancy between his oral testimony and written statement cast doubt on the veracity of his overall account. Further challenging Peter’s credibility, the defense presented evidence demonstrating that, contrary to his earlier claims, both Peter and his twin brother, Paul, had signatory access to Northside Entertainment Limited accounts. This contradicted Peter’s assertion that Jude was the sole signatory and that he had no involvement in the company’s financial dealings. Bank statements showing substantial withdrawals by Peter himself further undermined his claims.
Peter’s testimony regarding royalty payments also came under scrutiny. He had initially stated he was unaware of a contract with Mad Solutions, the company managing P-Square’s music catalogue, and claimed to have only received minimal royalty payments. However, the defense presented documentation showing that the contract was signed by all three parties – Jude, Peter, and Paul – with equal entitlement to royalties. The documented payments received by Peter were significantly lower than what he had claimed under oath, further weakening his narrative. The defense argued that these discrepancies were not mere oversights but deliberate attempts to mislead the court and the EFCC.
The defense’s strategy centered on exposing inconsistencies in Peter’s testimony, using documented evidence to contradict his claims. Bank mandates, bank statements, and EFCC records were presented to challenge Peter’s assertions regarding his financial involvement with Northside Entertainment Limited, his knowledge of the Mad Solutions contract, and the amounts he received in royalty payments. The defense painted a picture of a witness whose testimony was unreliable and motivated by a desire to incriminate his brother.
Peter’s defense against the presented evidence was that he relied on Jude to manage their finances and therefore lacked detailed knowledge of specific transactions. He claimed that although he had signatory access, he rarely used it and relied on Jude to distribute funds. He explained the discrepancies in his royalty payment claims by suggesting that he hadn’t personally reviewed the records and was relying on information provided by others. His explanation for the large withdrawals from the company account was that Jude’s assistant would cash checks and deposit the money into his personal account.
The judge, Justice Oshodi, admitted several of the defense’s documents into evidence and advised the defense to provide all documentation to the prosecution to expedite the trial. The case highlights the complex and often acrimonious nature of family disputes, particularly when intertwined with financial matters. The conflicting testimonies and the presentation of contradictory evidence underscore the challenges in determining the truth in such cases. The trial has been adjourned, leaving the court to weigh the evidence and determine the veracity of the claims made by both sides. The case continues to unfold, leaving the ultimate determination of guilt or innocence hanging in the balance.
