In a dramatic turn of events in the ongoing fraud trial involving Nigerian music star Peter Okoye of P-Square and their former manager Jude Okoye, the defence counsel, Clement Onwuenwunor, SAN, on Friday accused Peter of deliberately misleading the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, with false and contradictory claims.

The EFCC had arraigned the defendant alongside his company, Northside Music Ltd on a four-count charge.

In one of the counts, Jude and his Northside Music Limited allegedly dishonestly converted the sum of $767,544.15 to his use.

The defendant, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge.

In his evidence in chief on May 16, Peter had narrated how he was allegedly defrauded by his brother Jude and Northside Entertainment.

However during cross examination, on Friday, defence lawyer, Onwuenwunor pointedly told the Lagos High Court, Ikeja, presided over by Justice Rahman Oshodi that Peter’s testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and outright fabrications intended to mislead the EFCC and tarnish the reputation of the defendant, Jude Okoye.

READ ALSO: EFCC Arraigns Lawyer For N41m Fraud In Enugu

During a heated cross-examination, the defence discredited Peter’s earlier statement to the EFCC in which he described himself as a graduate of the University of Abuja.

Contrary to that claim, Onwuenwunor revealed that Peter had, in fact, dropped out of the institution.

When confronted with the discrepancy between his oral claims and written EFCC testimony, Peter attempted to backtrack, stating that he had only said he “attended” the university.

However, the defence tendered the EFCC’s documented records in which Peter specifically described himself as a “graduate,” prompting him to admit in open court that he had not completed his studies.

Onwuenwunor further presented documentary evidence proving that Peter and his twin brother Paul were not only aware of but also had signatory access to Northside Entertainment Limited accounts.

Contrary to Peter’s earlier claim that Jude Okoye was the sole signatory and that he had no access to financial dealings, the defence produced a bank mandate clearly stating that Jude was a Category A signatory, while Peter and Paul were Category B signatories.

READ ALSO: DSS Grants Nnamdi Kanu’s family, lawyers Access After Pressure

The defence counsel also submitted bank statements that showed Peter personally withdrew large sums in both naira and dollars from the company’s account.

There were also multiple direct transfers made to him by Jude Okoye. These records stood in direct contradiction to Peter’s sworn statement that he never benefited financially from the company or from any deals executed under Jude’s management.

Onwuenwunor also questioned Peter over his claim regarding royalty payments from Mad Solutions, the company handling the P-Square music catalogue.

Peter had previously testified that he was unaware of the contract with Mad Solutions and had only received $25,000 and $20,000 in royalty payments, implying that Jude had siphoned the larger share.

But the defence countered the narrative by presenting documents to the court confirming that the agreement with Mad Solutions was signed by all three parties—Jude, Peter, and Paul—and that each had equal entitlement to royalty payments.

READ ALSO: Rivers Crisis: Legislative Lawyers Ask Supreme Court To Review Judgement

The document contrary to Peter’s assertion, according to the defence, revealed that he actually received $4,330.47 and $5,837.35 as his first and second payments, respectively—figures far lower than the $25,000 and $20,000 he claimed under oath.

“Peter’s testimony before the EFCC is riddled with lies and misrepresentations. He has made multiple assertions that have now been shown to be false under cross-examination. This is not just a matter of forgetfulness. This is an intentional effort to mislead investigators and this honourable court,” Onwuenwunor told the court.

Justice Oshodi, while admitting several of the bank documents and EFCC statements into evidence, advised the defence to ensure all documents are made available to the prosecution ahead of further proceedings.

“If you intend to use a document, make it available to them to make the trial faster,” the judge said.

The trial was adjourned to October 10 and 17, 2025, for continuation of trial.