The family alleges that the film contains false accounts of the late politician’s private life and career, while the producer insists its portrayal is drawn from public records.
The family of the late Ibadan political powerbroker, Lamidi Ariyibi Adedibu, and filmmaker Seun Oloketuyi are locked in a dispute over Adedibu: Alagbara Ibadan, a biographical film about the politician’s life and career.
However, Mr Oloketuyi has rejected the allegations and refused to withdraw the production, maintaining that it draws on information already in the public domain.
Mr Oloketuyi produced the film through Ultimate Communications, and Abiodun Jimoh directed it.
Promotional materials announced a premiere on the Libra TV YouTube channel on 4 October. However, legal correspondence from both sides said a video titled Adedibu Latest Movie 2026 was published on 3 October.
The production chronicles Mr Adedibu’s life, political rise, relationships and influence in Oyo State.
Documents seen by PREMIUM TIMES on Sunday show that the dispute began shortly after the film became publicly available.
In a letter dated 5 October to the manager and producer of Libra Channel, Blossom Chambers said she was acting for the administrators and administratrix of Mr Adedibu’s estate and his family.
The lawyers alleged that the filmmakers produced and published the film without consulting the family or securing its consent.
They accused the filmmakers of presenting what they described as “grave untruths, fabrications and sensational falsehoods” about Adedibu’s private life and political career.
According to the letter, the family objected to the film’s portrayal of Mr Adedibu’s early years, bedroom, family, private life and personal lifestyle, which it said presented him as morally depraved.
It also disputed allegations in the film that he rigged elections through violence, practised “amala politics” to enslave the people of Ibadan and was a “puppet of doom.”
The family described those portrayals as malicious distortions of Mr Adedibu’s political activities and participation as a grassroots mobiliser.
The lawyers said the filmmakers neither interviewed family members nor accessed its archives. They also alleged that images, voice recordings and private family photographs were used without permission.
The family consequently demanded the immediate removal of the film, including its excerpts, clips and reuploads, from YouTube and other social-media platforms.
It also asked the producer to preserve all raw footage, sources, and scripts, and to refrain from producing another documentary, film, skit, or social-media post about Mr Adedibu without the estate’s administrators’ written consent.
The lawyers further demanded that the filmmaker publish a three-minute apology on the same YouTube channel, pin it for 30 days, and publish another apology in the Nigerian Tribune within seven days.
They demanded ₦500 million as aggravated damages for what they described as an invasion of privacy, false light and injury to the family’s reputation.
The family gave the producer 48 hours from receiving the letter to comply. It threatened to submit privacy and defamation complaints to YouTube, petition the Inspector-General of Police’s Cybercrime Unit and institute an action at the Oyo State High Court if he failed to do so.
It said the proposed court action would seek ₦1 billion in damages and a perpetual injunction against the filmmaker, his agents and privies.
In a response dated 7 October, the producer’s lawyers, ASALAW LP, rejected the family’s allegations and demands.
The law firm said the family’s letter did not identify a specific statement in the film that was allegedly false or provide timestamps and evidence contradicting any of the disputed portrayals.
“The video referred to by you is a retelling of the public life and political career of a man who, by every account, was one of the most prominent, most discussed and most documented political figures in the history of Ibadan, Oyo State and South-West Nigeria,” the lawyers wrote.
They maintained that newspapers and magazines had previously reported the events portrayed in the film, and that books, academic publications, broadcast programmes, documentaries, and public debates had discussed them.
“Every fact depicted in the video is in the public domain,” the response stated.
The producer’s lawyers argued that Nigerian law generally does not require filmmakers to obtain permission from a deceased public figure’s relatives before producing a historical or political account of that person.
They, however, distinguished family consent from any copyright or proprietary rights that might exist over individual photographs, recordings or other protected materials.
They said the production used materials obtained from publicly accessible sources to compile a historical account of matters already in the public record.
They also argued that the family had not identified any photograph, recording or other material over which it held an enforceable proprietary right.
The lawyers rejected the privacy claims, maintaining that the film focused on Adedibu’s public career and political conduct rather than the private data of his surviving relatives.
