Why a Memorandum of Understanding Was Never Enough and What Every Partnership, Family or Otherwise, Should Learn from the saga.
For over two decades, Peter and Paul Okoye, the identical twins known to the world as P-Square, built one of the most successful musical partnerships in African history. Alongside their elder brother and longtime manager, Jude Okoye, they created hit records, filled arenas, and became a brand worth millions of dollars. Yet the very thing that made their story so compelling to fans the fact that it was built entirely on family trust is the same thing that has, repeatedly, brought it to the brink of collapse.
The group first split in 2016 amid disagreements over roles, management, and finances. They reconciled in 2021 to great public fanfare, only to disband again by 2024. What followed has been a bruising public spectacle: allegations of undisclosed fund transfers, a formal petition to Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), claims of threats over the sale of jointly held property, and public accusations traded between brothers who built an empire together but, by their own accounts, never fully agreed on how to run it.
“Behind the glitz of a public brand can sit an informal, undocumented business relationship and that gap is where disputes like this one are born.”
This piece is not an attempt to adjudicate who is right or wrong in the Okoye family’s dispute, that is a matter for the parties, and where criminal allegations are involved, for the appropriate investigative and judicial authorities. It is instead an opportunity to draw out a lesson that applies to every business partnership, joint venture, or family enterprise: informality is the single greatest legal risk that closely-held businesses carry, and it is entirely avoidable.
The Psquare Saga: A cautionary tale for family & Business partnerships
1. Why Documentation Matters
Every dispute that plays out in public, over social media, in the press, or before regulators, almost always traces back to a private failure: the absence of a clear, written record of what the parties actually agreed to. When there is no documentation, or the documentation is incomplete, each party is left to rely on memory, on trust, and ultimately on their own version of events. That is precisely the vacuum in which allegations of secret deals, undisclosed income, and betrayal thrive.
Proper documentation does several things that a handshake, a verbal understanding, or a loosely worded agreement cannot:
- Certainty. It creates a single, objective source of truth that all parties can be held to, reducing the room for “he said, she said” disputes.
- Clarity of authority. It defines, in advance, exactly who has authority to sign contracts, move funds, or dispose of jointly owned assets thereby removing ambiguity about who was authorized to act.
- Dispute resolution in advance. Well-drafted agreements anticipate disagreement and set out how it will be resolved, long before emotions are running high.
- Protection in litigation. In the event of litigation, regulatory investigation, or arbitration, a properly documented agreement is the strongest form of evidence a party can produce.
Put simply, documentation does not create distrust between partners. It protects the relationship by removing the guesswork that allows distrust to grow in the first place.
2. A Memorandum of Understanding Is Not Enough
Many partners, especially family members entering business together, believe that signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is sufficient protection. It is a common and costly misconception. An MoU is, by its nature, a statement of intent. In most cases under Nigerian law, it is not designed to be an exhaustive, binding contract governing the full financial and operational life of a business. It typically lacks the enforceability, specificity, and internal governance detail needed to actually run a shared enterprise or resolve a serious dispute.
A genuine partnership, joint venture, or shared enterprise particularly one that will generate significant income, involve valuable intellectual property, or hold real property requires more robust legal instruments. Depending on the structure, this may include a formal Partnership Deed, a Shareholders’ Agreement, Articles of Association, a Joint Venture Agreement, or a comprehensive Management and Royalty Agreement. These instruments should work together, and at minimum, should include the following elements.
Approval Clauses Must Be Included
One of the most common triggers of partnership breakdown is a decision taken unilaterally by one party that materially affects the others,the sale of a jointly owned property, the diversion of funds, the signing of a contract in the group’s name, or the transfer of intellectual property rights. A properly drafted agreement must include clear approval clauses specifying which decisions require unanimous consent, which require a defined majority, and which categories of transaction (such as the sale of real estate, large withdrawals, or new debt) can never be undertaken by a single party acting alone. Without this, any partner with signing authority or practical control can act first and explain later and it is precisely this pattern that tends to fuel allegations of betrayal.
The Importance of Transparency
Financial transparency cannot be assumed; it must be built into the structure of the relationship. This means contractual access to bank statements, royalty statements, and financial records for every partner, not merely the one designated as manager. It means regular, scheduled financial reporting rather than disclosure only on request or under pressure. Where allegations of undisclosed income or hidden transactions become public, as has been the case in the P-Square dispute, they are almost always allegations that transparency obligations were either never defined or were not enforced.
The Importance of Accountability
Transparency without accountability is incomplete. A sound agreement should designate an independent auditor or accountant with a mandate to review the finances of the enterprise at agreed intervals, and should set out clear consequences where a partner is found to have acted outside their authority or mismanaged funds. Where one party is entrusted with day-to-day management, as was the case with the Okoye brothers’ manager and elder brother, that role should be governed by a written management agreement defining the scope of authority, the standard of care expected, and the remedies available if that standard is not met.
Equal Income Sharing Requires Equal Signatories
A recurring and serious error in family businesses is the assumption that because income will be shared equally, formal legal documentation is a mere formality that can be handled loosely, or handled by only one party “on behalf of” the others. This is backwards. Precisely because income, assets, and liability are to be shared, every party with a stake in that income must be a signatory to the governing agreements, bank mandates, royalty collection accounts, and any instruments dealing with jointly owned property or intellectual property. A party who is not a signatory has no direct legal standing to enforce their share, no visibility into transactions carried out in the entity’s name, and no protection if another signatory acts alone. Equal economic entitlement must be matched by equal legal participation.
Even Among Brothers: Independent Legal Representation
Perhaps the most important, and most commonly ignored, principle is this: shared blood is not a substitute for independent legal advice. Family members going into business together, however close, however trusted, have interests that can diverge the moment money, control, or legacy are on the table. A single lawyer advising “the family” or “the group” cannot properly represent the individual interests of each brother, partner, or shareholder without an inherent conflict of interest. Each party should retain their own independent counsel to review and negotiate the terms of any partnership, management, or royalty agreement before signing. This is not an act of mistrust between family members; it is a standard professional safeguard that ensures each party’s interests are properly protected, and it is often the very safeguard that, when absent, allows a private disagreement to escalate into the kind of public, multi-year dispute the Okoye family has experienced.
3. The Lesson
The P-Square story is, first and foremost, a story of extraordinary musical talent and family bond. But viewed through a legal lens, it is also a study in how quickly an undocumented or loosely documented business relationship can unravel once success, money, and diverging visions enter the picture. The brothers’ dispute did not arise because they lacked love for one another or lacked business success; it arose, at least in significant part, because the legal architecture around their shared enterprise appears not to have kept pace with its scale.
For entrepreneurs, artists, and family businesses alike, the lesson is straightforward: formalize the relationship before the money arrives, not after the dispute begins. A well-drafted partnership agreement, with clear approval clauses, enforceable transparency and accountability obligations, full signatory participation for every party sharing in the income, and independent legal advice for each party, will not prevent every disagreement. But it will ensure that when disagreements arise, as they eventually do in any partnership, they can be resolved by reference to a clear, binding document rather than fought out in public, in the press, or before a regulator.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It draws on publicly reported accounts of the Okoye family/Psquare dispute for illustrative purposes only; Olamide Oyetayo & Co has no involvement in and makes no representation as to the accuracy of those reports or the merits of any party’s position.