Burna Boy Catalogue: Understanding The Dispute Between 960 Music Group & Aristokrat

 

This matter goes beyond entertainment gossip because it sits at the intersection of corporate governance, shareholder authority, and control of intellectual property.

Here is what is at stake.

Burna Boy’s earliest commercially successful recordings such as Like To Party, Tonight and his debut studio album L.I.F.E (2013) were released under Aristokrat Records, the label that played a major role in launching his career.

As Burna Boy evolved into a global superstar, those early masters transformed from ordinary releases into high-value assets capable of generating revenue for decades through streaming, licensing, publishing, synchronization and international exploitation. BIG MONEY 🥹

Catalogue value rises with the artist’s profile and Burna Boy’s profile rose astronomically. That means Aristokrat is the Ownership of those masters therefore means control of serious money, negotiating power, and long-term legacy rights.

So, what went wrong ?

The conflict began in May/June 2024, when Aristokrat Music, the label that launched Burna Boy’s career in 2011, allegedly sold the artist’s historical intellectual property (IP) and master recordings to his current imprint, Spaceship Music, which is led by Burna Boy and his mother, Bose Ogulu.

Who is 960 Music and how does Burna Boy Catalogue relate to them ?

960 Music Group is not a stranger to Aristokrat. It is a shareholder, widely reported to hold around 40% equity in the label.

In corporate terms, that makes 960 a minority shareholder with significant economic interest and certain legal protections regarding how major assets of Aristokrat (the company) are handled.

At the centre of the controversy is the reported transfer or sale of Burna Boy’s catalogue to Spaceship Music, the artist’s own company.

From a business perspective, an artist acquiring his early work is not unusual globally. Many stars eventually try to regain control of their masters.

However, the legality of how such a transfer is executed is where disputes often arise.

They argue that as a major shareholder, the sale of the company’s ‘crown jewel, assets was finalised without their knowledge, consent, or board approval.

Criminal Allegations

Beyond the civil dispute, there are also reports of criminal investigations examining whether the transaction involved wrongful conversion or misapplication of proceeds.

A criminal matter, if it proceeds, is separate from the civil fight about ownership but it increases the seriousness and public attention surrounding the case.

The Force Criminal Investigation Department FCID has officially filed charges against Piriye Isokrari, the founder of Aristokrat Records, following an intensive investigation into allegations of financial misconduct and fraud levelled against 960 Music Group.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The CEO is being accused of a breach of fiduciary duty.

960 Music claims the CEO bypassed corporate governance to strike a “private deal” with Spaceship Music, effectively “selling out” the interests of his partners at 960 Music.

While the Catalogue deal was likely intended to give him absolute control over his early masters , a goal for many global superstars, the alleged procedural failures by his former label, Aristokrat have placed those masters in legal limbo.

Where the court gives ruling in favour of 960 Music, Burna Boy’s own label could be forced to return thr catalogue back to the Old label and possibly a new Sale agreement will be made.

Legal Perspective

From a corporate law standpoint, the controversy surrounding the reported transfer of Burna Boy’s early catalogue turns primarily on whether the transaction complied with the governance framework binding on Aristokrat and its shareholders, particularly in light of 960 Music Group’s significant minority interest. Where a company disposes of a major revenue-generating asset, the law typically demands demonstrable adherence to board authority, disclosure obligations, fairness in valuation, and the fiduciary duty owed to the company as a whole rather than to select beneficiaries. If it is established that requisite approvals were bypassed or that the process operated to prejudice a shareholder, a court is empowered to set the transaction aside or impose corrective remedies; however, proof of proper authorization and procedural integrity would strongly sustain its validity.

The dispute therefore illustrates a defining principle of modern entertainment finance: commercial desirability cannot cure procedural defect.