A long-running disagreement between music stars Davido and Wande Coal over an unreleased collaboration has erupted into a public social media dispute, with the row taking a personal turn after Davido reposted photographs purported to show the veteran singer naked.
The beef, which has generated significant discussion online, centres on Wande Coal’s 2021 song, Come My Way. Davido recorded a verse for the track, but his contribution was never officially released.
Speaking recently on the Uncut podcast, Davido said Wande Coal had approached him about the collaboration. He claimed he delivered what he considered a strong verse but objected to a proposal to release the original song first and reserve his contribution for a remix.
Wande Coal subsequently disputed Davido’s account in a post on X, accusing him of attempting to influence the release strategy of a song that was not his.
“Carry song come give you as how? Song wey been get release plan and date!!! Song wey no be your own you wan dictate release plan. That song fkin did well without you on it bruv!!!” he wrote.
The disagreement quickly moved beyond the unreleased song, with both artistes trading personal remarks.
Davido responded, “No vex Mr Little”, a comment widely interpreted as a reference to a 2010 controversy involving photographs of a naked man alleged to be Wande Coal.
Wande Coal and Don Jazzy, who was then the head of Mo’Hits Records, had denied that the photographs were genuine, saying they had been digitally manipulated.
Wande Coal subsequently hit back at Davido, calling him a “toto beggar”, apparently referring to an old viral video involving Davido in which he was alleged to be asking a woman for sex.
Davido later told News Central that Wande Coal was “not okay in the head” and accused him of being jealous. He also claimed that the older artiste had recently attempted to obtain his telephone number through intermediaries.
To support the claim, Davido shared a WhatsApp screenshot dated July 22, in which a mutual contact appeared to ask whether Davido’s number could be shared with Wande Coal.
The exchange also prompted social media users to revisit a 2011 post in which Davido had publicly asked Wande Coal to “dm ya numba”.
The dispute took another turn after Davido reposted the alleged nude photographs linked to the 2010 controversy.
The images were widely circulated online, with some social media users accusing Davido of revenge porn and arguing that the repost amounted to an attempt to humiliate or harass Wande Coal during their disagreement.
Speaking to Saturday Beats, legal practitioner Oluwatodimu Ige, popularly known as Oga_thelawyer, said such conduct could potentially have legal consequences, depending on the circumstances and evidence available.
“Potentially, yes. The fact that the repost occurred during a public quarrel, particularly where the surrounding circumstances suggest an intention to embarrass, insult, harass, intimidate or cause distress, makes the conduct legally more serious,” he said.
Ige identified Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, as amended in 2024, as one of the provisions that could be relevant.
He said the section addresses the knowing or intentional transmission of messages or other material through a computer system or network where the material is grossly offensive, pornographic, indecent, obscene or menacing.
It also covers certain communications allegedly intended to cause annoyance, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, hatred, ill-will or needless anxiety, he said.
The lawyer, however, cautioned against automatically describing every online repost of an intimate image as revenge porn.
“I would avoid saying categorically that every repost of a nude photograph automatically constitutes ‘revenge porn’ under Section 24. Nigerian legislation does not expressly use that terminology, and the prosecution would still have to establish the ingredients of the particular offence charged,” he said.
“There is consequently an important distinction between what people colloquially call revenge porn and what can actually be proved as a criminal offence under Nigerian law.”
Ige also said that the fact that an intimate photograph had previously been circulated did not necessarily amount to permanent consent for it to be republished.
“If an adult voluntarily sends an intimate photograph to another person, that does not necessarily mean that the recipient has been given an unrestricted licence to publish it to thousands or millions of people,” he said.
He added that the previous availability of an image online did not automatically establish that the person depicted had consented to its republication in a different context.
“Under the Data Protection Act, the question is not simply, ‘Was this photograph already online?’ It is also, ‘Was there a lawful basis for this particular processing or further dissemination, and was the subsequent use compatible with the original purpose?’” he said.
Ige nevertheless acknowledged that the previous publication of an image could be relevant when determining whether the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
“That said, public availability is not irrelevant. It could be highly relevant to the question of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, the circumstances in which the photograph was originally published, whether consent was given, the purpose for which it was published, and whether the subsequent publication was substantially different from the original publication,” he said.
The dispute between the two artistes has since shifted from a disagreement over an unreleased collaboration to a broader public controversy involving personal allegations, social media conduct and questions about the legal limits of republishing intimate material online.
