The streets of Ogbomoso hum with stories older than the walls of its palaces. Every corner seems to murmur the deeds of warriors, kings, and legends that have stitched themselves into the very identity of the city. Among these stories, one name resonates with a distinct cadence Ogbori Elemoso. It is a name that has inspired generations, a narrative that has journeyed from oral recitations in town squares to the flickering lights of the cinema screen. Yet, recently, a storm has stirred within this historical tapestry.
Lere Paimo, the venerable Yoruba actor whose performances have shaped modern Yoruba cinema, has stepped into the spotlight not for his artistry but for a dispute over the story he immortalized decades ago.
The tension is palpable, echoing questions of ownership, legacy, and the delicate line between public history and private creation. As the palace of Ogbomosoland issues denials and the production studio defends its project, the narrative of Ogbori Elemoso has become a battleground for culture, law, and respect for artistic heritage.
The Genesis of a Controversy
Lere Paimo’s connection to Ogbori Elemoso is more than professional. His 1987 historical movie captured the imagination of Yoruba audiences and placed the story firmly in the consciousness of Nigerian cinema. For decades, the film remained a touchstone, a reference point for filmmakers and historians alike. It is against this backdrop that Paimo became aware of a new project drawing inspiration from the same historical figure. Initially, he welcomed discussions with the Soun of Ogbomosoland, expecting collaboration and recognition.
However, the dialogue that began in goodwill soon revealed fractures. Paimo claimed that the new production was moving forward without his consent and that the rights to his original interpretation were being disregarded. His concerns centered not just on artistic respect but on the principles of intellectual property, which in the Nigerian context remain complex and often underexplored, particularly regarding historical narratives.
Paimo has publicly stated that he quoted approximately ₦100 million for the rights to his original work. To him, this was a reasonable request reflecting decades of creative labor and the cultural weight of his production. Instead, he was reportedly approached with a smaller sum, described as a gift. This gesture, intended perhaps as goodwill, was interpreted by Paimo and his family as dismissive. The funds were returned, and legal counsel was engaged to issue warnings to the production studio. These actions highlighted a tension between perception and practice between the veteran actor and the new filmmakers, illustrating a recurring challenge in Nollywood where historical stories intersect with intellectual property rights.
The controversy deepened when Paimo suggested that the Soun of Ogbomosoland, the traditional custodian of cultural heritage in the city, was aware of the project’s trajectory yet did not ensure his consent was obtained. This implication positioned the dispute not merely as a conflict between an individual actor and a studio but as a broader conversation about custodianship of historical narratives. It was a debate that would unfold publicly and ignite discourse on the ownership of stories that, while historically rooted, have become commodities within the film industry.
At the heart of this controversy is a question that echoes through Nigerian creative circles: who truly owns a story that belongs simultaneously to history and culture and yet is expressed through an individual artist’s interpretation? The answer, as the palace and studio argue, is far from straightforward.
The Palace Responds
Oba Ghandi Olaoye, Orumogege III, the Soun of Ogbomoso, and his palace issued an official statement rejecting Paimo’s claims. The palace emphasized that the allegations were misleading and could incite unnecessary speculation. According to the statement, Paimo had been informed early about the project and invited to participate in the creative process. The payment offered, amounting to ₦7.5 million, was intended for his participation rather than as compensation for exclusive rights or intellectual property. The palace maintained that the new project was fundamentally different in title, narrative, and plot from Paimo’s 1987 classic and therefore did not constitute a remake.
The palace also framed the story of Ogbori Elemoso within the realm of public history. The narrative of the city’s founding and the deeds of its historical figures is widely known and has been passed down through generations. This, the palace argued, placed it outside the ambit of copyright law as understood in contemporary Nigeria. No individual, regardless of their creative interpretation, can claim sole ownership of a story that belongs collectively to the community. This assertion emphasized the tension between individual artistic creation and shared cultural heritage.
In its statement, the palace further downplayed the notion of a legal dispute. It described the matter as one that could have been addressed through private discussion and collaboration rather than public controversy. This perspective reflects the traditional approach to conflict resolution within Yoruba cultural institutions where consensus and communal dialogue are often preferred over litigation. The palace’s framing positioned itself as a mediator safeguarding the historical narrative rather than an adversary in a copyright conflict.
This response did not aim to diminish Paimo’s contribution but sought to clarify the distinction between historical fact and creative interpretation. It underscored the delicate balance of respecting veteran actors while also allowing new storytellers to explore narratives that are foundational to collective memory. In doing so, the palace reinforced the principle that history belongs to all, while acknowledging that creativity requires negotiation and recognition.
Studio Perspective and Production Defense
Fewchore Studios, the production company behind the new Ogbori Elemoso film, issued statements denying any unlawful use of Paimo’s script or creative materials. The studio highlighted that the story of Ogbori Elemoso, being a public historical narrative, could be adapted by anyone as long as specific scripts or original expressions were not copied. They emphasized that their production emerged from independent research into historical archives and oral histories, ensuring that the project maintained its originality while respecting the cultural context.
The studio also addressed concerns regarding collaboration with Paimo. They stated that he had been contacted and offered participation in the project. The payment structure, framed as an honorarium, was consistent with standard industry practices for consultation and advisory roles rather than rights acquisition. This clarification sought to separate compensation for involvement from the notion of owning the story itself, emphasizing the distinction between professional engagement and copyright claims.
Beyond the financial discussion, the studio framed the project as an homage rather than a competition. The narrative was developed to explore themes within Yoruba history that extend beyond a single cinematic interpretation. This approach reinforced the studio’s argument that the film was an original creation informed by collective memory rather than a derivative of Paimo’s work. It highlighted a broader trend in Nollywood where historical projects increasingly require balancing respect for previous artistic works with the freedom to create anew.
Fewchore Studios also underscored that the new Ogbori Elemoso film would incorporate modern cinematic techniques and research findings unavailable during the 1987 production. The project aimed to introduce younger audiences to Yoruba history through a lens that resonated with contemporary sensibilities while maintaining fidelity to the core historical narrative. This positioning reflected a strategic approach that integrated cultural preservation with cinematic innovation.
Public Reaction and Cultural Debate
The dispute has sparked conversations across social media platforms, traditional media outlets, and academic forums. Audiences and commentators are debating whether historical narratives, once dramatized, can be claimed as intellectual property or whether they remain communal heritage. The discourse reveals a deeper tension within Nigerian cinema between protecting creative labor and acknowledging shared cultural ownership.
Some critics argue that veteran actors like Paimo have a moral and professional claim to recognition when their works inspire subsequent projects. Others counter that stories of public history are inherently communal and accessible to all creators. This debate has illuminated gaps in the Nigerian copyright framework, particularly regarding historical adaptations and the protection of creative interpretations versus public knowledge.
The controversy has also prompted a broader reflection on Nollywood practices. The industry’s rapid expansion and the popularity of historical films create fertile ground for disputes when boundaries between inspiration, homage, and appropriation blur. The Ogbori Elemoso dispute serves as a case study in how legacy, reputation, and cultural stewardship intersect with the business realities of contemporary filmmaking.
Community reactions within Ogbomoso itself have been mixed. Some residents support the palace’s position, valuing the preservation of historical integrity and the principle of public ownership. Others empathize with Paimo’s stance, emphasizing respect for creative labor and the financial and symbolic value of pioneering work in Yoruba cinema. These differing perspectives underscore the complex interplay of tradition, creativity, and modern intellectual property concerns.
Implications for Nigerian Cinema
The Lere Paimo versus Ogbomosoland case carries significant implications for the future of historical filmmaking in Nigeria. It highlights the need for clearer guidelines on the use of historical narratives, especially when previous cinematic interpretations exist. There is a growing recognition that Nollywood must balance respect for past creators with the opportunities for new artistic exploration.
Legal scholars and industry analysts suggest that the controversy may serve as a catalyst for policy discussions. Questions arise about how copyright law can accommodate public history while protecting individual creativity. Should adaptations of historical narratives require consent from earlier interpreters, or should the stories remain freely accessible? The Ogbori Elemoso debate is forcing Nigerian filmmakers, cultural custodians, and lawmakers to confront these questions with urgency and nuance.
Moreover, the dispute underscores the value of mediation and dialogue. The palace’s emphasis on collaborative resolution reflects a cultural approach that prioritizes communal negotiation over litigation. If applied more broadly, such mechanisms could provide a framework for resolving disputes without resorting to protracted legal battles, ensuring both respect for artistic contributions and fidelity to cultural heritage.
The controversy also encourages filmmakers to document agreements clearly. Transparent contracts regarding participation, consultation, and rights can prevent misunderstandings and reinforce professional standards within Nollywood. The Ogbori Elemoso case is a reminder that historical films, while culturally vital, require careful management of creative and legal responsibilities.
Conclusion: Between History and Art
The story of Ogbori Elemoso transcends the screen. It is embedded in the very soul of Ogbomoso, carried in tales recounted by elders and commemorated through generations. The dispute between Lere Paimo and the Ogbomosoland palace is not simply about money, credit, or copyright; it is about who has the authority to interpret history and how artistic legacies are honored. It is about reconciling the contributions of pioneers with the need for new storytellers to explore shared cultural narratives.
As the debate continues, the lessons are manifold. Historical films demand sensitivity to both cultural authenticity and individual creativity. Nollywood must evolve structures that respect veteran artists while enabling innovative reinterpretations. Intellectual property frameworks must find equilibrium between public ownership of history and recognition of creative labor. In this delicate balance lies the future of Yoruba historical cinema and the preservation of cultural memory for generations yet to come.
The Ogbori Elemoso narrative, immortalized by Paimo and now revisited by new filmmakers, will continue to inspire discourse and reflection. Its journey from oral tradition to the silver screen exemplifies the enduring power of stories to shape identity, provoke thought, and unite communities across time. In navigating this intersection of art, law, and heritage, Nigeria’s film industry confronts both its past and the possibilities of its future.
Discussion about this post