Our digital babel has quieted down. After weeks of sitting with conjecture, press releases from Qing Madi, her current label, KFMD, and embattled label, JTON Music, and exhaustive opinions driven by a sense of loyalty to these parties, onlookers in this voyeuristic apparatus called the internet have done what they do best, and moved on with their lives. This is far from the first artist-label dispute to take up valuable social media hours. It will not be the last—a conundrum that would be expounded on later in this story. And in the absence of facts, the audience runs with whoever’s summation is most appealing to their biases. On to the next controversy.
Piecing together available details from the three parties involved, we have the following picture: From Qing Madi: departure from the Joy Tongo-led, JTON Music, in May 2025, a subsequent unfair assault on her career that includes a $ 1 million suit ($2 million in a TikTok Live rant), signature forgery, and disputes over her masters, composition, and publishing rights. From Joy Tongo and J TON: allegations of reputational damage, Qing Madi being first to approach the Lagos High Court and breaching certain agreements, denial of any bullying accusations, and confirmation that the case remains in trial. From KFMD: An eight-part rebuttal that includes confirmation of the court’s ruling on the case and why Qing Madi terminated her contract, allegations of financial mismanagement from JTON, conflict of interest, false copyright claims, and attempts to restrict her live performance rights, vis-à-vis composition, among other claims.
As netizens bickered along industry tribal lines, Culture Custodian sought an accurate overview of what went down by obtaining official documents through the appropriate channels. What we found was a much larger story that’s almost entirely in alignment with the claims made, but also deeper in terms of details left out of the public eye. This isn’t to exonerate or excoriate any of the parties involved. We simply intend to figure out core truths, and most importantly, how that impacts the Nigerian music industry.
We begin on a fortuitous Saturday in late 2022, 24 September, when 16-year-old Amanda Pearl Chukwuma and her parental guardian, Oby Tina Chukwuma, signed a music artist production deal and management contract with JTON Music, a subsidiary of JTON Productions Inc., a US-based production company founded by African Entertainment Specialist, Joy Tongo. With that contract, Amanda became the artist known as Qing Madi. She released her first single, See Finish, the following month, and was poised to make her mark on the music scene.
Five days into 2023, JTON, Madi, and her mom entered into a new agreement to “highlight and explain certain terms and conditions in the initial document.” This new contract also replaced the 24 September, 2022 document, although certain terms exist across both. Looking through, one finds an explicit account of expectations from and for both parties. Madi’s contract was a 360 deal—where the label takes part in all of the artist’s revenue stream—a 5-year contract with a 3-year renewal option. JTON was to produce 2 albums of 10 or more songs and 3 EPs of 5 or more songs. Both parties were entitled to 50-50 ownership of masters during the term of the agreement, a similar split for: publishing rights and ownership of composition; performance royalties and mechanical royalties, and writers’ share and publisher share. Joint copyright to songs was to revert after the contract’s conclusion.
JTON was to handle distribution and marketing for the duration of the contract, receiving royalties (image, brand and product endorsements, adverts, sales of video and albums, live performances, etc.) and disclosing these royalties to Qing Madi and her team. The split was to be 70-30 for the first 3 years, 60-40 in years 4 and 5, and for 3 years after the agreement ended, 30-70. JTON was to be entitled to royalties on the composition for 8 years post-release of the master recordings. All royalties were to be delivered at least 7 working days from the company’s receipt.
Additionally, JTON would cover costs for video production, a ₦200,000 monthly allowance for artist wardrobe/personal expenses until she was fully established and able to cover costs for personal expenses, styling, etc.—recoupable afterwards. Both parties were to make joint decisions on artistic content, image, and titles, among others.
Three other inclusions stood out in the contract. All three have to come to bear in the recent dispute. The first is a clause about yearly audits of both parties’ accounts and affairs by a jointly appointed author. The second was a recognition of Qing Madi’s Columbia Records deal—a 30 May 2025-stamped writ of summons by JTON clarified that Madi had signed a recording deal with Columbia Records and BU Visions on 21 November 2022, later amended on 21 September 2023. And then, an exclusivity and non-circumvention clause which prevented her from signing to any other record label and forming or making appearances without JTON’s—at worst, reasonably withheld—consent. For any 3rd party record label offers, JTON reserved exclusive rights to review the offer and negotiate in good faith, terms which Madi could then agree or disagree with.
Qing Madi signing her deal as a minor isn’t without precedent. Within the Nigerian music industry, a more recent example would be ex-Dapper signee, Muyeez. And as far back as 2001, rapper A-Q signed his first deal with Big Leaf Records as a bright-eyed 15-year-old. Sections of the writ of summons show that her ‘minor’ contract had been approved by the Court of New York from Colombia Records and BU Visions LLC. However, this would prove to be problematic down the line.
At this point in the story, we’ll be taking a slight detour to 2011, when a budding Cynthia Morgan signed to JTON Records, the early iteration of JTON Music. According to Joy Tongo, who was also Morgan’s manager, it was via personal efforts, including securing a US work permit towards an eventually unfruitful New York-based deal, that Morgan signed to Jude Okoye’s Northside Records in 2013. Tongo recalls drafting the contract—also a 360 deal—in its entirety, passing it on to Morgan, who reviewed and approved the contract, and finally to Okoye, who signed off on it. Looking at the contract, certain details are similar to the clauses in Madi’s 5 January 2023 concert—a feature which isn’t surprising given how the law works, but is still intriguing in the wake of Madi’s dispute. Especially since Tongo and Morgan parted ways in June 2016, in a fallout that extended to a dissolution of the Northside Record deal the following year, and even more explosive revelations afterwards.
In May 2020, Morgan took to the internet, alleging that Okoye and his label failed to promote her music, had seized her accounts and withheld rights to her name. In response, Okoye shared copies of the contract on Twitter, proving otherwise. Shortly, around the same time, Tongo followed up with accusations about Morgan owing her $30,000 and Jude, about ₦40 million, and clarified her role in the matter. Morgan would eventually apologise just days after, introducing her new stage name ‘The Madrina,’ in the midst of it all. By December 2021, she [Morgan] was back to the same script: claiming that she had been treated poorly. She further alleged that Tongo had influenced her Northside Records signing, despite receiving a better deal from Okoye’s brother, Peter Okoye, one-half of the defunct P’Square. Keep this in mind as you read on.
Skipping ahead a few years, we arrive in 2025 and the first inkling of conflict between Madi and JTON. Before then, Madi had released an EP, Qing Madi, on 17 November 2023, and a follow-up deluxe in July 2025. The Qing Madi EP spurned hits like Ole (feat. BNXN) and American Love, and the crossover hit, Visions, with a remix featuring American singer, Chlöe Bailey, on the deluxe. Madi also had a prolific feature placement slate on records by mainstream stars like Iyanya, Basketmouth, Chike, and DJ Neptune. On 31 January 2025, she released her debut album, I Am The Blueprint, to mixed reviews. And in the aftermath of this release, Madi’s management appeared dissatisfied.
On the morning of 11 March, 2025, only a few people in the world were aware of the detonation set to take place concerning a certain blue-themed debut album. Madi’s team sent a strongly worded letter of “Urgent concerns regarding the promotion of her debut album.” They claimed that the album had not received promotion to the expected standards of the Columbia Records agreement, with complaints from fans about neither hearing the songs on the radio nor TV, nor knowing where to find them online. Madi was supposedly in the dark about key promotional and distribution activities. Something had to change.
To that effect, the letter outlined a 5-point demand that spanned everything from confirmation of Columbia Records’ specific role in the album’s release to breakdowns of the amount released for album promotion and the exact promotion strategies utilised. It concluded by reminding JTON, through Tongo, that Madi’s Columbia advance had to be repaid and accounted for. A 7 working-day ultimatum was issued to that effect. The first domino, tipped.
From here, we rely on the aforementioned writ of summons between JTON (claimant) and Qing Madi and her mom, Oby Tina Chukwuma (1st and 2nd defendants), for a timeline of what happened next:
11 March 2025 – Tongo responds to Madi’s team’s letter with a breakdown of expenses and promotional strategy employed.
28 March 2025 – Qing Madi, via her team, notifies Columbia Records about turning 18 and requests an update of her contract.
1 April 2025 – Qing Madi demands release of funds in the Coogan Trust account from JTON (Per KFMD’s 5 June 2026 release, a portion of her earnings were to have been placed in a blocked Coogan account till adulthood). She additionally requests up-to-date financial statements from initial 2022.
4 April 2025 – Qing Madi requests the transfer of social media control, consultation on future engagements, and financial disclosure on upcoming tours.
5 April 2025 – JTON responds to Coogan Trust request, clarifying that Madi and her mom had access.
7 April 2025 – JTON responds to the request of transfer of social media control
24 April 2025 – Qing Madi shares preliminary report of financial audit of financial records related to the Qing Madi-JTON agreement, conducted by a unilaterally appointed auditor.
5 May 2025 – Qing Madi terminates contract on grounds of being a minority at execution and loss of confidence in Management.
55 days after issuing a complaint about how her debut album was promoted, and just under 4 months after her first of 2 contractual LPs was released, Qing Madi was done with JTON Music.
The rest of May 2025 proved to be a dynamo of actions for both parties. The following day, 6 May, Madi and her team deposed to an affidavit about having signed the initial deal when she was a minor and claimed a breakdown of trust in JTON’s ability to manage her affairs. Columbia Records was notified of her decision to terminate the agreement on that same day. She followed up by forwarding a preliminary audit report for chartered accounts to JTON, still by the unilaterally appointed auditor. JTON responded with an itemised breakdown of the advances and expenses of the Coogan account—$88,250 in total—on 9 May, 2025. Madi rallied with a reminder to respond to the auditor’s queries 3 days later. At this juncture, letters ceased.
When we finally arrive at the 30 May, 2025-dated writ which establishes this timeline, what we see is a breakdown of alleged payments made to Madi and her mom —₦253,676,517 in payments based on the agreement, ₦3,752,000 and $1,100 in cash gifts, and $15,507.9 in actual gifts. The writ denied all allegations from Madi and her team in plain terms.
Citing bad faith actions and calculated opportunism by Madi and her mom, JTON made 10 requests of the Lagos State High Court, with 3 alternative or additional prayers. All have been summarised below for understanding:
- A declaration that Madi and her mum acted in a manner constituting unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and inducement, for which JTON deserved restitution.
- An order of restitution of ₦253,676,517 under the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
- An order directing Madi and her mom to render a full and accurate financial account of profits, revenue, commercial benefits, and performance-based income facilitated by JTON.
- An injunction restraining Madi from releasing music, entering into performance or endorsement contracts or commercially exploiting any platform facilitated/developed by JTON without appropriate compensation.
- A restraining order against Madi, her mom, and affiliates from defaming Tongo or her representatives anywhere.
- Damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and inducement arising from Madi’s mom’s conduct in procuring JTON’s services.
- General damages of $1 million for losses(emotional distress, reputational harm, and business losses) incurred by JTON.
- Interest on judgement sum
- Indemnity cost of the suit
- Post-judgement interest at 2% per annum
- Other orders the court deemed equitable.
Alternative and additional prayers include:
- A declaration that the 24 September 2022 and 5 January 2023 contracts are still enforceable.
- A declaration that Madi and her mom be stopped from denying JTON’s right to compensation.
- A declaration of the unilateral termination of the contract as a repudiatory breach of contract.
When the court eventually released its judgment on the case, signed on 25 May 2026, the outcome was split on both ends. Qing Madi was ordered to refrain from releasing, publishing, or performing material facilitated by JTON until the hearing and determination of substantive suits between both parties. Additionally, she was restricted from entering into new agreements or deals using the platform developed by JTON, but was, however, permitted to enter new deals unrelated to JTON, with a manager of her choice.
Madi was cleared to continue benefiting from contracts facilitated by JTON. Additionally, having turned 18, she was cleared to negotiate or renegotiate and execute new contracts and deals. JTON’s requests concerning defamation, directing all revenue earned from their investment to be preserved/paid into an interest-yielding account pending the suit’s determination, and another related to a publication of the enrolled order in at least one national daily, were all dismissed. The full judgment clarified the reasons for each decision. As of this article, the case is still far from concluded.
Contrasting the facts, as presented in court, with claims made in the past two months, there’s almost unanimous alignment, bar a few statements circulating on Obasanjo’s internet. Qing Madi’s claim in a 3 June 2026 TikTok live session that Tongo sued her for $2 million is inaccurate. Her claim that the song Pepper Me (feat. Zinoleesky) and others on her Barely Legal EP were taken down illegally “through the corners” isn’t exactly accurate, especially as her freedom to release new material under a new name and platform possibly clashes with the origin of said materials.
Also inaccurate is JTON’s 5 June 2026 claim that “the artist first approached the court—available documents suggested otherwise. KFMD’s same-day rebuttal is incomplete for claiming that the court found Qing Madi to have validly repudiated her contract on reaching adulthood, as it graciously excludes the additional clause that she cannot continue to enjoy the benefits of said contracts. Additionally, the claim that Qing Madi had been “denied access to the Coogan account” and “denied any verified statement of its balance” clashes with the court’s findings of proof of Coogan account payments sent to Madi’s mom, and confirmation that Madi and her mom had the responsibility of obtaining the money therein.
There’s much else that’s better determined by the forthcoming trial. Such as claims of financial misappropriation and JTON not bringing any financing of its own into her career, the Court determined that JTON breached the agreement by failing to carry out yearly audits, further adding that WhatsApp chats provided in the instance of the Coogan account were insufficient compliance. Concerning live performances of JTON-facilitated records, the right to perform compositions also remains in dispute. It remains to be seen what’s determined at trial.
Looking at this debacle from an industry lens, a few conversation points arise that require continuous probing. Ponder for a bit the extent to which narrative warfare has featured in this debacle. Hence, Qing Madi would mention Cynthia Morgan’s name to invoke empathy from fans. Over the years, revelations from Morgan, Tongo, and Okoye have proven that the latter two were undeserving of the accusations made. Madi’s implied parallels—even in a worst-case scenario where we take her contract to be an improved copy of Morgan’s—simply seek to take hold of public sympathy. And this is valid regardless of the trial’s outcome. Perhaps, if someday, current JTON-signing Zhus Djo emerges with similar lamentations about financial misappropriation and contract-breaching underhanded efforts, we could assume a pattern exists. Otherwise, all we have are straws; haphazardly-grasped straws.
There are striking similarities between the Qing Madi-JTON and Muyeez-Dapper disputes. Both artists were signed to the label as minors, with parents representing them formally as signatories to their contracts—Dapper confirmed that Muyeez’s father, Moshood Basheer, had signed the contract on his behalf. Both artists claim failed royalty payments and inadequate financial transparency. Both artists’ contract terminations were unilateral. Muyeez’s announcement occurred on 11 December 2024, the same day as fellow ex-Dapper signee, rapper Shallipopi, with the latter employing auditors, similar to Madi. Neither of their labels was operating on as large a scale as Mavin Records or Chocolate City, which have fewer, if any, instances of contractual disputes, not to mention the international labels with watertight contracts and even more definitive executions.
The debacle has revealed, yet again, the extent to which very few people understand how entertainment law works. In conversation with Culture Custodian, Victor Ekpo, an entertainment lawyer and legal Head at CIDAR Africa and Symphony Enterprise, explained, “For the general public, because artists have the clout and they’re the face, it’s easy to side [with them. Meanwhile, there are so many things that happen behind the scenes and even in recent times with ongoing disputes and all. I’ve seen both sides where even the label does really bad things. But artists have to take responsibility for the deals they sign. It’s 2026. We do not want to hear, ‘I was naive, I didn’t have a lawyer.”
Ekpo added that this was an incentive for young lawyers to sit up and consider the repercussions of the bad agreements being put out. He believes that the clauses being imported to Nigeria, on the assumption that what works in the UK, US, or Europe would necessarily work in Nigeria, are likely to backfire due to a lack of integration with the legal system here. Still, he sees this as a net positive for the ecosystem in terms of precedence. “When you have courts, you need precedents. You need cases to fall back to. Beyond that, for lawyers, it now feels like we have a lot of ground testing moments in cases, clauses, drafting, and knowledge. I keep saying that the lawyers in every industry are always at the forefront. If we get it right, then it means that we’re putting a very solid foundation for the next few years,” he expounds.
Concerning how frequently these artist-label disputes keep springing up, it’s not as much a matter of increased media scrutiny and surveillance as it is about ego clashes and the lack of structure within Nigeria. Ekpo mentions artists breaching contracts over issues such as the label failing to provide accommodation as stated in the agreements, whereas the label instead decided to invest that money into promoting music, and failed to inform the artist through appropriate channels. Or bigger labels poaching the talent. Or even poor financial record-keeping.
On this subject, Akinyemi Ayinoluwa, a 2025 Billboard Top Music Lawyers awardee and Partner at Hightowers Solicitors and Advocates, said, “With the disputes, usually it comes from when people’s expectations are not met. In every relationship, most of the time, disputes will start to happen when people feel disappointed. Sadly, we have a lot of people who do not understand that you should be able to resolve disputes and settle any differences properly in the absence of ego and mischief.”
The biggest downside to incessant artist-label disputes is demotivated investments. Akinyemi confers that local investors who might ordinarily have placed $50,000-$100,000 on talent would be encouraged to look elsewhere outside music. And for international investments, it means ensuring all legalities are settled outside the country. “That’s why you’d find that a lot of the funding for the music industry comes from outside Nigeria. Because international investors understand that, ‘Yes, we will protect our investment through the legal system of jurisdiction where we are domiciled.’ So, a lot of contracts that Nigerian superstars sign are under the law of London, New York, or Berlin—more developed legal systems. These superstars understand they have to respect their contracts,” he concluded.
All things considered, the outcome of the trial will influence contractual dealings between small-sized labels and signees for a while. But even more importantly, the public’s reaction, technical insight from entertainment lawyers, and opinions from music executives, managers, and artists, all point to an industry structure with gaping loopholes and a long way to go to grow. Rather than “artist=good/label=bad” absolutism, we have to evaluate these disputes holistically. Labels have exploited even greater artists in history than Madi for us not to be wary. There have also been instances where artists fail to hold up their end of the bargain. Hasty conclusions are thus unbeneficial to the whole.
