Nigerian singer Shallipopi has made fresh claims against music executive Dapper, alleging that his signature was forged and that his music catalogue was transferred to an international record label without his approval.
The artiste reportedly made the allegations while speaking about his previous dealings with the music executive, further intensifying attention around their professional relationship.
According to Shallipopi, “How Dapper forged my signature, sold my catalogue to foreign label.”
The allegation has sparked discussion within Nigeria’s entertainment industry, particularly over the ownership and commercial value of artistes’ music catalogues.
A music catalogue can represent a significant financial asset, with income generated from streaming, publishing, licensing, royalties and other forms of commercial exploitation. As Nigerian music continues to gain international recognition, disputes over catalogue ownership have become increasingly important.
Shallipopi’s latest claim also raises questions about the legal documentation allegedly used in the reported transaction. If a signature was indeed forged, the matter could potentially have legal implications. However, there is currently no independent confirmation establishing that such an act occurred.
Dapper’s response to the allegation would be necessary to provide his side of the story and explain any agreements or transactions involving Shallipopi’s music.
Shallipopi, whose real name is Crown Uzama, has become one of the notable names in Nigeria’s contemporary Afrobeats and street-pop movement. His music has earned substantial attention from listeners at home and abroad, increasing the commercial importance of the rights associated with his recordings.
The controversy comes amid broader conversations about the relationship between artistes, managers, record labels and distributors. Industry stakeholders have increasingly called for greater transparency in contracts and royalty arrangements to prevent disputes over ownership and earnings.
For artistes, properly documenting agreements and understanding the rights granted to managers or business partners can be crucial in protecting their creative assets.
If the allegations are taken before the appropriate authorities or courts, contracts, financial records, communication records and other documentation could help establish what happened to the catalogue.
For now, Shallipopi’s claims remain allegations and have not been independently verified.
Further comments from Dapper, the alleged foreign label or other parties involved could shed more light on the reported transaction and clarify who currently holds the rights to Shallipopi’s music catalogue.
