Nigerian singer Crown Uzama, popularly known as Shallipopi, has made serious allegations against his former management associate, Damilola Akinwunmi, the Chief Executive Officer of Dapper Music, claiming his signature was forged on multiple agreements and that his music catalogue was allegedly sold to an international company without his authorisation.
The allegations were made in a detailed statement posted on the artist’s verified X account, where he claimed that what began as a management relationship in 2023 was allegedly transformed into long-term contractual agreements without his consent.
Shallipopi further alleged that money connected to those agreements was collected without being remitted to him, and he has called on Nigerian authorities, including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), to examine the matter.
As of the time of publication, Dapper Music has not issued an official response addressing the singer’s latest claims.
Because the allegations involve potential legal and contractual issues, they remain unproven, and no court has made findings on the claims raised by the artist.
Shallipopi says he signed only a management agreement
According to the singer’s public statement, his relationship with Dapper Music began in 2023.
He claimed that the agreement he knowingly entered into was limited to management services.
However, he alleged that his signature was subsequently used on what he described as a separate 10-year distribution agreement that he insists he never approved.
Shallipopi said he was already using DistroKid to distribute his music and therefore questioned why another long-term distribution arrangement would have been created.
Those claims have not been independently verified, and no contractual documents have been publicly presented alongside his statement.
Alleged forgery forms centre of dispute
One of Shallipopi’s strongest allegations concerns forgery.
He claimed that his signature appeared on contractual documents that he says he never signed.
According to him, those alleged documents extended beyond distribution arrangements and included an agreement involving an international music company.
The singer alleged that the disputed documents formed part of a broader pattern of unauthorised contractual decisions affecting his music career.
Such allegations, if pursued legally, would require investigation and evidentiary examination by relevant authorities or courts.
Virgin Music Group mentioned in allegations
In his statement, Shallipopi specifically mentioned Virgin Music Group.
He alleged that an agreement involving the international company was executed using what he claims was a forged version of his signature.
According to the artist, he neither approved nor personally entered into the alleged arrangement.
He further claimed that financial benefits arising from that agreement were received without being properly accounted for to him.
At the time of publication, Virgin Music Group has not publicly responded to the allegations raised by Shallipopi.
Singer claims catalogue was sold
Another major allegation made by the artist concerns ownership and control of his music catalogue.
Shallipopi claimed that his catalogue was allegedly sold to a foreign company without his authorisation.
Music catalogues often represent valuable commercial assets because they generate revenue through streaming, licensing, publishing and other forms of exploitation.
The singer alleges that proceeds connected to the disputed transaction were retained rather than paid to him.
No independent confirmation of the alleged catalogue transaction has been publicly released.
Financial allegations deepen dispute
Beyond the contractual claims, Shallipopi also accused Dapper Music of withholding earnings generated from his music.
According to the singer, he was repeatedly encouraged to continue working while allegedly being told that financial rewards would come later.
He portrayed the situation as one in which promises about future earnings contrasted sharply with his own understanding of the money generated by his music.
Those financial allegations form another significant aspect of the ongoing dispute.
Again, Dapper Music has not publicly addressed those specific claims.
Public appeal to EFCC
Rather than limiting his complaints to social media, Shallipopi publicly appealed for official intervention.
He specifically called on:
- The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
- Government authorities.
- The media.
- The wider African public.
The singer urged those institutions to take what he described as the alleged fraudulent activities seriously.
Whether any formal petition has already been submitted to investigative authorities remains unclear.
Dapper Music yet to respond
At the time of publication, Dapper Music has not released a public statement responding to Shallipopi’s latest allegations.
The absence of an official response means the company’s position on the claims remains unknown.
As a result, many of the issues raised by the artist remain unresolved in the public domain.
Should Dapper Music issue a response, it may provide additional context regarding the contractual relationship and the allegations now attracting widespread attention.
Dispute follows wider controversy
Shallipopi’s statement comes amid broader conversations involving Dapper Music and several artists associated with the company.
In recent days, public disagreements involving musicians connected to the label have increasingly played out on social media.
Those disputes have raised questions among fans about artist-management relationships, contract transparency and financial accountability within parts of Nigeria’s music industry.
While each dispute involves different claims, the broader conversation has intensified public interest in contractual practices within the entertainment business.
Why music contracts matter
The allegations have also renewed discussion about the importance of understanding music industry agreements.
Artists commonly enter into contracts covering areas such as:
- Management.
- Distribution.
- Recording rights.
- Publishing.
- Catalogue ownership.
- Revenue sharing.
Because those agreements can significantly affect an artist’s career and earnings, disputes sometimes arise over interpretation, consent and financial obligations.
Legal experts generally advise artists to obtain independent legal review before signing major entertainment contracts.
Shallipopi’s rapid rise
The controversy comes during one of the most successful periods of Shallipopi’s career.
The Benin-born artist has become one of Nigeria’s fastest-rising music stars, gaining widespread popularity through hit songs and a distinctive musical style that resonated strongly with younger audiences.
His commercial success has increased the financial value of his recordings, performances and catalogue.
That context helps explain why questions surrounding ownership, distribution rights and revenue have attracted considerable public attention.
Industry watching closely
The entertainment industry will likely continue monitoring developments as the dispute unfolds.
Should regulatory agencies become involved, the matter could move beyond social media into formal investigations or legal proceedings.
At present, however, the allegations remain claims made by Shallipopi, while Dapper Music has not publicly presented its own account of the dispute.
Until additional evidence emerges or official findings are made, many of the central questions remain unanswered.
Unresolved legal and commercial questions
Shallipopi’s latest statement has transformed what appeared to be a contractual disagreement into a dispute involving allegations of forgery, unauthorised agreements and financial misconduct.
His public appeal for government intervention signals that he intends to pursue the matter beyond social media if necessary.
For now, the controversy remains one of Nigeria’s most closely watched entertainment disputes, with fans, industry stakeholders and legal observers awaiting further responses from Dapper Music, any involved international companies and, potentially, relevant investigative authorities.
