Is Kecobo favouring Pavrisk in artistes’ royalty collections?

While Kecobo has consistently argued that it acts in the interests of artistes through its oversight of CMOs, questions about its regulatory decisions and whether it applies its standards consistently have persisted.

A case in point is its recent dispute with the Kenya Association of Music Producers (Kamp), when Kecobo suspended the organisation’s operational licence despite orders from the Copyright Tribunal, citing the alleged diversion of Sh5.5 million.

Another CMO whose operational licence has remained suspended for more than a year is the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK). The decision was upheld by the High Court in August last year, and MCSK subsequently resolved to challenge it in an appeal that is currently before the courts.

Now, Kecobo appears to be favouring the Performing Audiovisual Rights Society of Kenya (Pavrisk) as the CMO responsible for collecting royalties from sectors previously allocated to Kamp.

“For the avoidance of doubt and in order to safeguard the interests of right holders, Kecobo hereby directs that during the period of (90-day) suspension of Kamp licence, Pavrisk shall collect royalties for and on behalf of the rights ordinarily represented by Kamp within the sectors allocated to Kamp,” Kecobo stated in July when it suspended Kamp’s licence.

The directive has raised questions because Pavrisk itself has previously faced scrutiny over its royalty distributions.

In a letter dated May 13, 2024, seen by Nation Lifestyle, Kecobo raised concerns over Pavrisk’s application for an operating licence, noting that it had failed to disclose two significant arrears.

“We acknowledged your application for an operating licence. We, however, note that your application omitted to report two significant arrears. Whether royalties from 2023 for actors that were to be paid by 30th April as earlier indicated were paid. And what amounts were set aside from the 1st quarter collections of 2024, and when it shall be distributed? Note that item one has been raised by some of your members,” Kecobo stated.

The Copyright Tribunal itself, in a judgment last month, found that none of the three CMOs collecting royalties on behalf of artistes—Pavrisk, MCSK and Kamp—was fully compliant with the CMO regulatory framework.

The Tribunal questioned the number of members declared by each CMO and, in PAVRISK’s case, whether its membership corresponded with the number of rights holders it represented.

It also questioned whether the CMOs were complying with the requirement that administrative costs should not exceed 30 percent of royalties collected.

“Kecobo noticed in its criteria that all applicants (of licences) did not pass this criterion as their administrative cost exceeded 30 percent of royalties collected.”

The Tribunal further found that none of the three CMOs had presented approved royalty distribution rules or evidence of regular distributions.

“The Tribunal has taken note of the non-compliance of all parties with this criterion,” it stated.

It also observed that none of the CMOs had been submitting quarterly reports.

“This Tribunal is led to believe that this is a criterion that none of the applicants has been compliant with, perhaps through the years they have been licensed by Kecobo,” the Tribunal said.

The findings raise questions about the regulator’s approach to the three organisations, particularly given Kecobo’s decision to allow Pavrisk to take over royalty collection from sectors previously assigned to KAMP.

CMOs have for years faced accusations of mismanaging artistes’ royalties. Audit reports have repeatedly raised concerns over their financial management, including failure to meet the regulatory requirement to distribute at least 70 per cent of collections to rights holders.

Kecobo’s most powerful regulatory tool has been the suspension of CMO licences. But the Tribunal, in its latest judgment, noted that the regulator should balance enforcement action against the potential impact that suspension has on rights holders.

The Kamp dispute

In its latest dispute with Kamp, now back before the Tribunal, Kecobo suspended the CMO’s licence over allegations involving Sh5,514,559.16.

The regulator is also pushing for Kamp to hold fresh elections and is calling for the removal of its chief executive officer, Maurice Okoth, who earns a monthly net salary of Sh379,692.

Kamp, however, is fighting back, accusing Kecobo of applying its regulatory powers selectively.

On the alleged embezzlement of Sh5.5 million, Kamp insists that no money was lost.

“To the best of my knowledge, the impugned decision does not identify the particular transaction, recipient, payment, documentary discrepancy or other financial entry said to constitute misappropriation or diversion,” Okoth argues in court documents before the Tribunal.

“The respondent (Kecobo) has instead referred the matter for independent investigation. I welcome lawful independent verification of the records but object to disputed allegations being treated as established findings before such investigation and due process have been concluded.”

According to Kamp’s NCBA bank statement seen by Nation, the CMO received Sh2.9 million between October and December 2025. Kamp argues that this is the figure Kecobo is relying on in making its claim of embezzlement.

However, Kamp says Kecobo has not specified the period during which the alleged Sh5.5 million was misappropriated.

The dispute also extends to Kamp’s board.

Kecobo maintains that the board has overstayed its term, which expired after the organisation’s last elections. Kamp disputes the regulator’s position and questions why similar action has not been taken against Pavrisk.

“Pavrisk last held an election in 2018. Current directors have served for approximately eight years, but no regulatory action has been taken against them. Our elections were held in December 2022, and the board was sworn in in January 2023,” Okoth says in an affidavit filed before the Tribunal.

He argues that Kecobo’s different treatment of the two organisations amounts to bias.

“Kecobo’s apparent inconsistency and differential regulatory treatment, for which no objective explanation has been provided, amount to bias,” he says.

Okoth also points to evidence presented by rapper Vicmas Luo Dollar, who stated in an affidavit before the Tribunal that Pavrisk had not held elections since 2018.

“Pavrisk also didn’t distribute in 2025; we did. This lays the basis for biased mistreatment,” Okoth told Nation.

Kamp says it is ready to hold elections but cannot do so within the 30 days directed by Kecobo because the regulator’s suspension has cut off its main source of revenue.

“Pavrisk has also not achieved the 70-30 distribution requirement. No CMO can manage to operate at 30 per cent administrative cost for a full year, but it is being treated this way,” Okoth adds.

The tariff question

According to another Kamp official, who requested anonymity, the current dispute with Kecobo began after the CMO questioned the number of sectors allocated to it under the royalty tariffs.

Sectors are allocated to CMOs to determine where they can collect royalties. They include supermarkets, shops, public service vehicles and broadcasters, among others.

“Our problem with Kecobo began right after we signed the e-Citizen service-level agreement. The Kamp chair then wrote to Kecobo raising issues about the few sectors we had been allocated. More sectors means more money. It was after that letter that our problems with Kecobo began,” the official said.

In a letter to Kecobo dated June 30 this year, seen by Nation, Kamp objected to the allocation of tariffs, questioning why the majority had been assigned to Pavrisk.

According to the letter, Pavrisk had been allocated 20 tariffs, while Kamp had been allocated only four.

The disparity, Kamp argues, is central to its concerns about Kecobo’s regulatory decisions and its relationship with Pavrisk.

With millions of shillings in artistes’ royalties at stake, the dispute is no longer simply about the survival of individual CMOs. It is about who gets to collect the money, how it is distributed and whether the regulator is applying the same standards to every organisation entrusted with artistes’ earnings.

For artistes, the most important question remains whether the system ultimately delivers the royalties they are owed.