Nigerian music industry risks billions in lost royalties amid copyright levy dispute

Nigerian music industry risks billions in lost royalties amid copyright levy dispute

A brewing dispute over the disbursement of Nigeria’s private copying levy has pitted major record labels against the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC).

The dispute centers on the private copying levy, a mechanism embedded in Nigeria’s Copyright Act 2022 to compensate rights holders for unavoidable private reproductions of copyrighted works. This levy is imposed on devices and media capable of copying audio, visual, or textual content, including mobile phones, USB drives, SD cards, MP3 players, DVDs, computer hard drives, photocopying machines, and even decoders. The rationale is straightforward: in a country where piracy and unlicensed copying remain rampant, the levy serves as blanket remuneration for creators who cannot practically license every instance of private use, such as making backups, sharing with family, or downloading for personal consumption.

Nigerian music industry stakeholders are warning that billions of naira in royalties could be misdirected or lost due to a lack of transparency and proper representation.

The Record Label Proprietors Initiative (ReLPI), a non-profit association representing powerhouse labels like Mavin Records, Chocolate City, and international giants such as Universal Music Group (UMG), has accused the NCC of attempting to funnel funds to the Musical Copyright Society Nigeria (MCSN), a collective management organization (CMO) they claim lacks the mandate to represent their members’ interests.

According to the Copyright (Levy on Material) Order 2021, the private copying levy generates funds that are collected by the NCC and disbursed quarterly, with CMOs entitled to 30 percent of the proceeds after approved deductions. Section 89(3) of the Copyright Act 2022 explicitly states: “The levy payable under this section shall, subject to approved deductions, be paid into the Fund of the Commission and the Commission shall have power to disburse the funds to approved CMOs or other representatives of right owners, in accordance with the regulations made by the Commission.” This provision allows for flexibility, enabling distributions not just to CMOs but to other legitimate representatives like ReLPI, which positions itself as the mandated body for sound recording owners.

In a letter dated January 21, 2026, signed by ReLPI President and Mavin Records CEO Tega Ogenejobo, the organization decried the NCC’s plan to disburse the levy solely to MCSN. ReLPI argued that this move deviates from standard practices, failing to properly establish shares among different classes of rights—such as musical works (composers and publishers) versus sound recordings (labels and producers).

“The disbursement process fails to align with standard practice, including in the establishment of shares among the relevant classes of rights and in the distribution of levies,” Ogenejobo said in the letter.

ReLPI’s stance is bolstered by Section 88(9b) of the Copyright Act, which prohibits one CMO from representing works if the owner is already represented by another. ReLPI members, who control vast catalogs spanning decades and dominate Nigeria’s contemporary music market, have explicitly opted out of MCSN’s collective structure.

“None of the existing music CMOs represent the interests of its members and thus lack the mandate to collect licence fees, including the copyright levy on their behalf,” ReLPI said.

The private agency further emphasised that MCSN’s extended collective license (ECL) under Section 88(9) cannot apply to their works, and Section 89(3) permits direct disbursement to representatives like ReLPI.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the global body representing the recording industry, has thrown its weight behind ReLPI in a letter dated January 22, 2026, signed by Regional Director for Sub-Saharan Africa Angela Ndambuki. IFPI urged the NCC to pause any disbursement, warning of “irreversible prejudice” if funds are released to an entity without the unequivocal mandate from rights holders.

“The portion of the levy belonging to sound recordings must be ascertained, and the distribution mechanism should ensure the funds reach the relevant right holders,” the Ogenejobo demanded in the letter.

IFPI, which recognizes ReLPI as its partner in Nigeria, called for a “judicious, equitable, transparent, and protective” process.

This controversy arrives at a precarious time for Nigeria’s music industry, which has long struggled with disorganised royalty collection amid internal CMO disputes, leadership tussles, and legitimacy crises. The emergence of groups like ReLPI reflects a push by major and emerging players to safeguard their investments in an ecosystem increasingly globalized through Afrobeats stars like Burna Boy, Wizkid, and Davido.

ReLPI’s members — including Davido Music Worldwide (DMW), Premier Records, Sony Music Entertainment (SME), Warner Music Group (WMG), Hypertek Digital, and Digital Music Commerce & Exchange (DMCE) — collectively own tens of thousands of sound recordings, both local and international, dating back to the 1960s.

Entertainment lawyer and executive Oyinkansola Fewehinmi , known on X as @fozadoza, amplified the issue in a viral thread on January 26, 2026, warning that the industry “is about to lose BILLIONS!” She described the levy as a long-fought compensation pool for rights holders, but criticized the NCC’s intent to route funds through MCSN without transparency. “Transparency and accountability are not optional when you’re handling billions,” Foza wrote, questioning MCSN’s representation scope and citing past settlements like a N2.5 billion deal with Multichoice in 2021.

She highlighted the distinction between musical works and sound recordings, arguing that forcing funds through a single CMO ignores opt-out rights and the law’s allowance for multiple representatives. Foza called on artists, labels, and executives to demand public disclosure of the levy framework, distribution methodology, and audit plans, emphasizing that silence could lead to funds “going missing.”

On LinkedIn, discussions have also gained traction. Laklat Achi, a legal professional, posted about the MCSN-ReLPI feud, arguing that routing all funds through MCSN contradicts the law and could undermine rights holders’ interests. He further expressed concerns for independent creators who are self published and are not signed to major labels or represented by trade associations saying that under the current dispute, they risk being structurally excluded from levy distributions due to absence of representation.

At stake is potentially billions in revenue that could recapitalize the industry, attract investors, and provide stable income streams for creators. Foza warned that mishandling could deter investment by signaling unstable revenue sources. “The question the industry keeps asking is basic: who got paid, how, and based on what data? Representation must match the right being paid Levy funds are meant for right owners.

Read also:Court orders forfeiture of N1.04bn jet over customs duty default

Music has at least two big buckets of rights that people love to mix up: musical works (composers/publishers) and sound recordings (masters/labels). If the disbursement is framed as “music industry money” while the receiving body’s scope does not cleanly cover the relevant right, that becomes a huge structural problem. Who does MCSN represent?”, Foza wrote.

ReLPI maintains that the NCC’s approach risks irreversible harm, as disbursed funds to an unauthorized entity could be difficult to recover. As of this report, the NCC has not publicly responded to the latest letters, but sources indicate they view MCSN as Nigeria’s primary CMO.

Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date