A long-standing disagreement between music stars Davido and Wande Coal over an unreleased song has turned into a public fight on social media. The argument got personal after Davido reposted photos that are claimed to be of Wande Coal without clothes.
This feud has been a hot topic online this week. It started with Wande Coal's 2021 hit, ‘Come My Way’. Davido had recorded a verse for it, but that part was never officially released.
In a recent chat on the Uncut podcast, Davido said Wande Coal asked him to join the project. He thought he did a great job but refused to release the song first and then hold his part for a remix.
Wande Coal disagreed with this version of events. He took to X and accused Davido of trying to control the release of a song that isn’t 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 argument quickly escalated beyond just music. Davido hit back with, “No vex Mr Little,” which many saw as a reference to a 2010 incident where naked photos of a man thought to be Wande Coal were shared online.
Back then, Wande Coal and Don Jazzy, who was the Mo’Hits boss, claimed the images were digitally changed and not of Wande Coal.
Wande Coal retorted, calling Davido a “toto beggar,” referring to an old viral video where Davido was seen allegedly begging 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 Wande Coal had been trying to reach him and had asked for his phone number through others.
He shared a WhatsApp screenshot from July 22 as proof. In the screenshot, a mutual friend asked if he could give Wande Coal Davido's number.
Fans quickly brought up a tweet from 2011 where Davido asked Wande Coal to “dm ya numba,” making the dispute even more intense.
As the fight grew, social media users focused on Davido’s reposting of the alleged nude pictures from the 2010 incident. Some users accused him of doing revenge porn.
The photos spread quickly online, with many calling for accountability. They saw Davido’s repost as an effort to embarrass or harass Wande Coal during their public fight.
Speaking with Saturday Beats, legal expert Oluwatodimu Ige, known as Oga_thelawyer, said this kind of behavior could have serious legal consequences in Nigeria.
“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.
“The main law is Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, as amended in 2024. This section talks about the knowing or intentional sharing of messages or other materials that are grossly offensive, pornographic, indecent, obscene or menacing. It also covers messages sent to annoy, insult, injure, intimidate, spread hatred, ill-will or needless worry.”
But Ige warned against saying that every repost of a nude photo is revenge porn under Nigerian law.
“I would avoid saying categorically that every repost of a nude photograph automatically constitutes ‘revenge porn’ under Section 24. Nigerian law does not clearly use that term, and the prosecution still has to prove the elements of the specific crime charged.
“There is an important difference between what people call revenge porn and what can actually be proven as a crime in Nigeria.”
He also pointed out that just because someone shared an intimate photo before, it does not mean they allowed it to be published again.
“If an adult sends an intimate photo to someone else, that doesn’t mean the receiver has the right to share it with thousands or millions of people.
“Also, just because a photo was online before doesn’t mean the person agreed to it being reposted in a different context.
“Under the Data Protection Act, the issue is not just, ‘Was this photo already online?’ It is also, ‘Was there a legal reason for this particular sharing or further spreading, and was the new use compatible with the original purpose?’”
Oga_thelawyer added that the earlier availability of the image online could still matter when deciding if the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
“Public availability is not irrelevant. It could be very relevant to the question of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, the circumstances when the photo was shared, whether consent was given, the purpose for which it was shared, and if the new publication was very different from the original one,” he said.
Drop your comment
No comments yet — be the first to drop the gist 👇