Dapper Breaks Silence on Seyi Vibez, Shallipopi and T.I Blaze Dispute, Demands Independent Audit

Dapper Group CEO Damilola “Dapper” Akinwunmi has responded to the growing controversy involving former artistes Seyi Vibez, Shallipopi and T.I Blaze, denying allegations of unpaid royalties, contract irregularities and financial misconduct.

Nigerian music executive Damilola “Dapper” Akinwunmi has broken his silence on the increasingly heated dispute between his Dapper Group and three artistes who have publicly raised allegations about their former business relationships with the company.

The controversy erupted publicly in mid-August after T.I Blaze, Seyi Vibez and Shallipopi separately criticised Dapper Music over issues including royalties, contracts, catalogue ownership, licensing and financial accounting.

In his latest statement, Dapper said he had deliberately remained quiet because he preferred contracts, financial records and legal processes to social media arguments. He, however, said the continued allegations had made it necessary for him to respond.

“My silence is beginning to look like an admission to some people.”

According to the music executive, the public narrative surrounding the dispute does not reflect the full history of his relationships with the artistes or the investment made by his company.

Dapper Says Artists Understood and Negotiated Their Contracts

Dapper strongly rejected suggestions that artistes were unaware of the agreements they signed.

He said contracts were provided ahead of signing, giving the artistes time to read the documents, seek legal advice and negotiate their terms.

He specifically referenced Seyi Vibez, saying the singer was accompanied by his own legal counsel from the beginning of their relationship.

Dapper also addressed his dealings with Shallipopi and T.I Blaze, maintaining that their agreements were entered into knowingly and that the benefits attached to those contracts were honoured.

His position is that the current disagreement is not about whether the artistes understood their contracts, but about whether they remain satisfied with the terms of those agreements.

The claims remain disputed, with the artistes having publicly presented a very different account of their dealings with Dapper Music.

Dapper Recalls Supporting Shallipopi During His Arrest

One of the more personal points in Dapper’s statement was his account of what happened shortly after Shallipopi joined the company.

He said the artiste was arrested about a month into their relationship and that, rather than abandoning him, Dapper Music arranged and paid for his legal representation.

Dapper added that the company also paid legal fees for a friend of Shallipopi who was reportedly arrested at the same time despite having no contractual relationship with the company.

He said both men eventually returned home and argued that the episode was evidence of the company’s commitment to supporting the artiste beyond simply funding music releases.

Dapper Lists the Work and Money Put Into Artists’ Careers

Dapper also pushed back against the impression that his company simply collected money from artistes without investing in their careers.

He said Dapper Music handled A&R, production, songwriting connections, features, release strategies, marketing, logistics and other behind-the-scenes responsibilities.

He argued that much of this work is invisible to fans because it happens away from social media.

The executive also pointed to investments in music videos, international trips, recording sessions, touring and other career-related expenses.

According to his account, some projects involved substantial spending across Nigeria, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States and Dubai.

He cited one example involving two music videos shot in the United States, which he said cost the company about $52,000.

He also claimed that one US trip for recording camps and video shoots cost more than $200,000 after flights, accommodation, visas, transportation and other expenses were included.

Dapper said these figures are documented in company records and should be examined through a proper financial audit rather than debated on social media.

Dapper Explains His Position on Recoupable Advances

A major part of Dapper’s defence centred on how record-label financing works.

He argued that money spent by a label on an artiste is not automatically a gift. According to him, advances and other investments are recoupable under the terms of the agreements.

His explanation comes amid claims from former artistes about revenue, royalties and outstanding balances.

T.I Blaze, for example, recently alleged that more than ₦1.2 billion in revenue was unexplained and also referenced an outstanding figure of $185,000. Shallipopi separately accused Dapper of withholding royalties connected to dozens of songs.

Dapper disputed the wider interpretation of such figures, arguing that catalogue revenue figures quoted online should not automatically be treated as money owed directly to an artiste.

He explained that streaming platforms, distributors and other parties may receive portions of gross revenue before contractual deductions and recoupment are considered.

His position is that the relevant accounts should therefore be examined from the underlying contracts and financial statements rather than isolated revenue figures.

Masters and Catalogue Ownership Become a Major Flashpoint

The ownership of music catalogues has emerged as one of the most contentious parts of the dispute.

Shallipopi has accused Dapper Music of withholding royalties from 46 songs and alleged that his catalogue was transferred to Virgin Music without proper accounting. He has also made allegations concerning the use of his signature on a separate distribution agreement.

Dapper rejected the suggestion that catalogue ownership was secretly taken from the artistes.

He argued that when a label finances the creation and commercialisation of recorded music, ownership of the resulting masters can form part of the contractual arrangement.

According to him, the position regarding ownership was contained in the agreements and was known before the artistes signed.

He also firmly denied selling any artiste’s catalogue.

“I have not sold anyone’s catalogue.”

Dapper said ownership remains where the relevant agreements place it and insisted that the contracts should be examined before conclusions are drawn.

Dapper Denies Forging Any Artist’s Signature

The music executive also addressed allegations that documents connected to the artistes may have been forged.

He described the allegation as serious and categorically denied falsifying any signature or fabricating any agreement.

The issue is particularly significant because Shallipopi has publicly alleged that while he signed a management agreement with Dapper in 2023, his signature was later used on what he described as a separate 10-year distribution agreement.

Dapper maintained that the documents and signatures can be independently verified.

He said the matter should ultimately be settled through evidence rather than competing claims on social media.

Dapper Challenges the Artistes to a Forensic Audit

Perhaps the strongest part of Dapper’s response was his call for an independent examination of the business relationships.

He said he was prepared to make the company’s accounting records, distribution statements, contracts and payment records available for forensic review.

Dapper challenged the artistes to choose a reputable accounting or legal firm capable of examining the records and determining whether money is actually owed by the company or by the artistes.

He has previously made a similar challenge publicly, naming major international accounting firms and Nigerian law firms as potential choices for an independent review.

His argument is straightforward: rather than relying on figures and accusations shared online, the contracts and accounts should be examined by independent professionals.

Dapper Says Legal Processes Are Already Underway

Dapper also said the dispute had moved beyond social media and into formal processes.

He maintained that the agreements contain procedures for resolving disputes and said those procedures had been activated.

According to him, the company has cooperated with authorities that have requested information and will continue to do so.

He also claimed that a date had already been fixed through the appropriate process and that the parties involved were aware of it.

The executive said he intends to allow lawyers and the relevant institutions to handle the matter rather than turning the internet into what he described as a courtroom.

Threats Have Also Entered the Dispute

Beyond the financial and contractual arguments, Dapper revealed that the controversy has also led to threats against him and people close to him.

He said the threats had been documented and passed to the appropriate authorities.

While declining to disclose their details publicly, he urged people involved in the dispute to avoid allowing a business disagreement to escalate into personal attacks or threats.

A Bigger Fight Over How Nigeria’s Music Business Works

The Dapper controversy has grown into more than a disagreement between one executive and former artistes.

It has opened a wider conversation about artist contracts, catalogue ownership, royalties, financial reporting, recoupment and the level of legal and financial understanding available to young Nigerian musicians.

T.I Blaze, Seyi Vibez and Shallipopi have each raised different complaints against Dapper Music, while Dapper has consistently denied wrongdoing and maintained that the records will support his side of the story.

For now, the biggest questions remain unanswered publicly: how much money was generated, how much was spent, what each contract actually provides, who owns the disputed recordings and whether either side has outstanding financial obligations.

Those questions are unlikely to be settled by social media posts.

Dapper’s latest position is that the documents and accounts should speak for themselves, and he has invited independent scrutiny of the records.

As the legal and financial processes continue, the dispute is likely to remain one of the biggest talking points in Nigeria’s music industry, particularly because it involves three prominent artistes and raises difficult questions about the business structures behind successful Afrobeats careers.