Nigerian singer Crown Uzama, popularly known as Shallipopi, has launched a fresh and explosive attack against music executive Dapper, accusing him of withholding royalty income from 46 songs and allegedly selling his music catalogue without properly accounting for the proceeds.
The singer made the allegations on X while addressing the ongoing dispute between himself and Dapper over royalties, music rights and catalogue arrangements.
Shallipopi’s claims have added another layer to a dispute that has attracted significant attention within Nigeria’s entertainment industry.
Table of Contents
- Shallipopi Accuses Dapper Over 46 Songs
- Singer Questions His Royalty Payments
- Alleged Sale of Music Catalogue
- Shallipopi Threatens EFCC Action
- Singer Says Other Artistes Were Affected
- Shallipopi Accuses Dapper of Manipulation
- Dispute Raises Questions About Music Rights
- What Happens Next?
Shallipopi Accuses Dapper Over 46 Songs
Shallipopi alleged that Dapper is withholding royalty income connected to 46 of his songs.
According to the singer, the alleged unpaid income includes revenue from his hit song “E Don Cast.”
Taking to X, Shallipopi questioned why the money connected to his songs had allegedly not been properly accounted for.
He wrote:
“Dapper nor forget na my laho money Dey with me o, u Dey hold me 46 songs royalty income including my ‘E don cast’ money.”
The allegation, if established, could have significant implications because royalties are an important source of income for recording artists, particularly when songs continue generating revenue through streaming, downloads, licensing and other forms of commercial use.
Singer Questions His Royalty Payments
Music catalogues can represent substantial long-term financial assets for successful artistes.
A catalogue may generate income for years after a song is released, depending on streaming performance, licensing agreements, publishing arrangements and ownership rights.
Shallipopi’s complaint therefore appears to centre not only on alleged unpaid royalties but also on questions surrounding who controls his recordings and how money generated from them is being distributed.
The singer has publicly demanded clarity over the alleged financial arrangements.
However, the claims remain allegations at this stage, and Dapper’s response would be important in determining his position on the accusations.
Alleged Sale of Music Catalogue
Shallipopi went further by alleging that his catalogue had been sold.
He also claimed that Dapper had taken catalogues belonging to several artistes to Virgin Music and received money from the arrangement without properly accounting for the proceeds.
The singer questioned how such deals were allegedly conducted and whether the affected artistes received the money they were entitled to.
He subsequently warned that he was prepared to take the matter to Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
“Dapper you Dey hold me money o, and u sell my catalog now u Dey act confuse, I go EFCC office i go write statement against u.”
The allegation of catalogue sales is particularly significant because ownership and control of music rights can determine who receives future revenue from recordings.
Shallipopi Threatens EFCC Action
Shallipopi’s reference to the EFCC marks a significant escalation in his dispute with Dapper.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is Nigeria’s principal agency for investigating and prosecuting certain financial and economic crimes.
By threatening to make a formal statement, Shallipopi indicated that he was considering taking the dispute beyond social media.
He also accused Dapper of giving the EFCC misleading information.
“And u go another EFCC office Dey lie for them, you forget say nor be only me u scam lol.”
There is currently no indication in the material provided that the EFCC has formally confirmed an investigation into the allegations.
Singer Says Other Artistes Were Affected
Shallipopi also suggested that he was not the only artiste who had allegedly experienced problems with Dapper.
His comments indicated that he believes other musicians may have been affected by similar catalogue or financial arrangements.
This could potentially make the dispute broader than a disagreement between two individuals if other artistes independently come forward with similar allegations.
For now, however, Shallipopi has not provided a comprehensive public list of the other artistes he believes were affected.
Shallipopi Accuses Dapper of Manipulation
The singer also accused Dapper of manipulating artistes and made a series of emotional statements about the music executive.
In one of his posts, Shallipopi described Dapper as a “master manipulator” and accused him of taking advantage of people within the industry.
He wrote:
“Jude nor sabi work reach u and u know broski u be master manipulator…”
He continued with further allegations, claiming that Dapper had treated people unfairly.
The comments show how emotionally charged the dispute has become, with the singer appearing determined to publicly challenge what he considers unfair treatment.
Dispute Raises Questions About Music Rights
The controversy has once again highlighted the complicated business relationships that exist between artistes, managers, record executives, distributors and music-rights companies.
When artistes sign agreements involving their recordings, several different rights can be involved.
These may include master recording ownership, publishing rights, distribution rights, licensing income and royalty collection.
The precise terms of individual contracts are usually private, meaning social media accusations alone cannot establish who legally owns a catalogue or who is entitled to particular payments.
That makes formal documentation and independent verification particularly important in disputes involving music rights.
What Happens Next?
Shallipopi’s threat to approach the EFCC could represent the next major development in the dispute.
If he proceeds with a formal complaint, authorities could potentially examine the financial records and agreements connected to the allegations.
Any investigation would need to establish whether money was withheld, whether catalogues were transferred or sold with proper authorisation, and whether all parties received the payments to which they were contractually entitled.
For now, Shallipopi’s accusations remain allegations, and no finding of wrongdoing has been established against Dapper based solely on the singer’s social media posts.
The controversy is nevertheless likely to attract further attention as fans and members of Nigeria’s entertainment industry wait for a response from Dapper.
If the parties cannot resolve the disagreement privately, the dispute could eventually move from social media into formal legal or regulatory proceedings.
