NCC gave a directive that the status quo should be maintained as it was on December 7, 2017 and a forensic audit carried out and thereafter further right decisions will be made, till date, what we have seen is the COSON house being locked and all we hear is that “NCC cannot decide the Chairman of COSON “; we think that is missing the point and what is being said. 

Why do we like to fan out smoke and not look at substance?  It’s a simple matter really, way before this chairmanship issue, COSON knows that a lot of artistes and managers, especially those of the younger generation are wary of COSON.  They complain severally of non-payment and irregular communication, this is saddening, when you also consider that most have made efforts to get to COSON and not gotten a favourable feedback.

Most artiste and managers would love to see a forensic audit carried out at COSON,  an audit that will tell in the last 5 years how much has come in and how much has gone out,  has COSON stayed within the 30% limit stipulated by law?  What are the log details used? How do we determine what any artiste gets without proper log details?  Do we get these details from the radio station?  This isn’t a witch hunt, it’s a way to restore confidence in COSON for the artistes who own the rights to the songs, on whose behalf COSON collects royalty. Trust has been broken, whether knowingly or unknowingly, either due to a real reason or a perceived one, trust has been broken. How do we restore this trust?

It is not about “fighting for Chairmanship”,  let the courts interpret that,  but for anyone to say the regulator that has the right to withdraw your license (if there is an infraction) cannot call for an audit,  we think that is a case of dancing naked in the market square. They are the regulators, they can call for an audit to determine if you are within best business practice.  We encourage we all allow them to do this audit and help restore confidence back in COSON so we can move forward. It is even a great move for COSON itself!  If everything is found to be well, would that not say volume of the competence of the leadership under which such good records was achieved?  What exactly are we afraid of?  Why are we against a forensic audit?