Why I dragged my brother Jude to EFCC – Peter Okoye

By Ayorinde Oluokun/Abuja

Peter Okoye, the other half of the singing duo, P-Square, has explained why he reported his elder brother, Jude Okoye, to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, over alleged diversion of funds.

Peter revealed this while speaking as a witness during the ongoing trial of Jude Okoye, who was also a former manager of P-Square before Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja on Friday, according to a statement by Dele Oyewale, the spokesperson of the anti-graft agency.

Jude Okoye, alongside his company, Northside Music Limited, is being prosecuted by the Lagos Zonal Directorate 1 of EFCC on a four-count charge bordering on theft to the tune of over $1m.

He pleaded not guilty to the charges when they were read to him.

At the resumed trial of the matter on Friday, defence counsel, Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN) confronted Peter with the statements of account belonging to Northside Music Limited, detailing some transactions over a period of time

But Peter who spoke as the first prosecution witness stated the bank statements belonged to their joint business interest, saying, “These statements of account belong to me and my brother. We are P-Square. The company belongs to Peter and Paul. It was registered by him. I reported to the EFCC when I discovered funds were being diverted, and EFCC brought the matter to court.”

“My lord, we own an entertainment company together, and I discovered another company, Northside Entertainment Company diverting our funds. I showed it to my brother.”

He also confirmed that he petitioned the EFCC through his lawyer, and that Jude’s wife owns 800,000 shares in the company in question.

The defence counsel, thereafter, sought to tender documents attached to the original petition submitted to the EFCC, insisting the documents were vital to their case.

However, the prosecution counsel M. K. Bashir, objected to their admissibility, arguing that “the documents are public documents.

“The defence merely produced copies stamped as Certified True Copies (CTC). They were not attached to the petition, and they were not in proper legal form.” He, therefore, urged the court to reject them.

In a short ruling, Justice Oshodi ruled that although the documents originated from the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) and ended in the EFCC’s custody, they did not meet the admissibility requirements of the court.

“I reject the documents and mark them as rejected,” the judge held.

The case was adjourned till February 20 and 27, 2026 for continuation of trial.