Concerns are growing within Nigeria’s music industry over the implementation of a long-anticipated copyright levy, with industry stakeholders warning that billions of naira meant for artistes and rights holders could be mismanaged if transparency issues are not addressed.
The controversy centres on the private copy levy, a charge recognised under Nigeria’s Copyright Act. The levy applies to devices and materials that can be used to copy creative works without permission, such as mobile phones, storage devices, and other copying tools. The idea behind the levy is to compensate rights holders for private copying that cannot realistically be prevented.
Under the law, the levy is paid into the Nigerian Copyright Commission’s (NCC) fund and is meant to be distributed to approved collecting management organisations (CMOs) or other representatives of rights owners. The money is not a government grant but compensation legally owed to creators and rights holders.
In a widely circulated thread on X, legal and music industry analyst Folarin “Fosadoza” Adebajo raised alarms over reports that the NCC plans to route music-related levy funds through the Musical Copyright Society Nigeria (MCSN). While routing funds through a CMO may appear administratively convenient, she argues that convenience does not replace legality or accountability.
One of the major concerns is transparency. If any organisation is to manage levy funds potentially worth billions of naira, the industry must have access to clear distribution rules, audited accounts, and a published list of beneficiaries. Questions have been raised about past distributions, including references in MCSN’s 2021 annual report to a ₦2.5 billion settlement with Multichoice, with industry players asking who was paid, how payments were calculated, and which rights were covered.
There are also concerns about representation. Music rights are typically divided into at least two major categories: rights in musical works (composers and publishers) and rights in sound recordings (record labels and artistes who own their masters). Treating levy proceeds as generic “music industry money” without clearly separating these rights could result in improper distribution.
The Copyright Act itself allows flexibility. It permits the NCC to disburse levy funds not only to approved CMOs but also to “other representatives of right owners,” and it recognises the right of creators to opt out of collective management in certain circumstances. Forcing all levy funds through a single organisation contradicts both the spirit and letter of the law, especially where rights holders have already chosen alternative representatives.
In her post, Fosadoza warned that Nigeria’s history shows that large sums of money often disappear not through overt theft, but through silence and lack of oversight.
She and others are calling on artistes, labels, publishers, managers, and entertainment lawyers to publicly demand answers from the NCC. Among the demands are the publication of the full levy framework, a list of approved recipients, a clear audit and reporting plan, and an explanation for why rights holders may be compelled to work through organisations they do not belong to or do not trust.
The stakes are high. The private copy levy has been debated for more than a decade and is seen as a potential stable revenue source for Nigerian music at a time when global investors are paying closer attention to Africa’s creative economy.
“This is not just about money,” Fosadoza wrote. “It’s about governance.” Without transparency, critics warn, a policy designed to strengthen the music industry could instead deepen mistrust and undermine investor confidence at a critical moment.
