The family of late Ibadan political strongman, Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu, has reportedly demanded ₦500 million from filmmaker Seun Oloketuyi over the production of Adedibu Alagbara Ibadan, a film based on the life, political influence and legacy of the late chieftain.
Oloketuyi, while responding to the controversy during a television interview, defended the production, insisting that the project was not undertaken without efforts to obtain the family’s consent. He maintained that the filmmakers had contacted members of the late politician’s family several years before the film was produced and held meetings concerning the proposed project.
According to the producer, the film was completed approximately four years ago, following preliminary discussions and efforts to secure cooperation from the family. He said the team initially approached the late Adedibu’s widow, Alaja Bose, through a formal letter before arranging meetings at the family’s residence in Molete, Ibadan, Oyo State.
“No, not at all. If this is how we wanted it, this film was produced four years ago. I didn’t just wake up one morning and go on location because we wanted to shoot a movie,” Oloketuyi said.
He explained that two members of his team attended the first two meetings with the family, while he personally participated in the final meeting. According to him, the initial discussions did not appear to raise objections to the proposed film, but the situation changed later.
“At first, she did not have any issues with it, but all of a sudden, she changed her mind,” he said.
Oloketuyi disclosed that the production team had hoped to use the late politician’s Molete residence as a filming location to make the story more realistic. However, he claimed that permission to use the property was withdrawn only three days before shooting was scheduled to begin.
He said the family did not provide a reason for the late change, despite attempts to understand the circumstances surrounding the decision. According to him, he also contacted influential individuals who could help establish communication with the family and clarify the disagreement.
The filmmaker argued that these efforts demonstrated that the production was not a spontaneous attempt to commercialise the late politician’s name without prior engagement with his relatives.
Oloketuyi also said he sought legal advice before proceeding with the film. He explained that his lawyer requested to examine the screenplay and took time to verify the material used in developing the story.
According to the producer, the legal consultation focused on the content of the script and whether the proposed portrayal relied on material that could legitimately be used in a film about a public figure.
He maintained that the events depicted in the production were based on information already available in the public domain, including media reports, publicly accessible interviews and recorded statements attributed to the late Adedibu.
“There’s nothing in the media that is not granted by the media or that Baba himself did not do or say,” Oloketuyi said.
He cited video recordings of interviews granted by Adedibu, including one conducted by journalist Diran Odeyemi, as examples of materials that informed the film’s portrayal of the late politician.
The producer also referred to footage available online showing political exchanges involving Adedibu, former Oyo State Governor Rashidi Ladoja and Senator Teslim Folarin. He argued that such recordings provided historical material for reconstructing events and political relationships associated with the late chieftain.
The controversy raises broader questions about the relationship between a filmmaker’s freedom to portray public figures and the concerns of families seeking to protect the reputations and legacies of deceased relatives.
Biographical films frequently draw on historical records, interviews, news reports and publicly available footage. However, disputes can arise when relatives object to the interpretation of events, the use of a family property, the portrayal of private relationships or the commercial exploitation of a deceased person’s identity.
In this case, Oloketuyi’s defence rests on his assertion that the production followed preliminary engagement with the family and that the screenplay was reviewed and fact-checked with legal guidance before filming proceeded.
The reported ₦500 million demand represents a substantial financial claim, but the precise legal basis of the demand, the family’s detailed allegations and the status of any formal court proceedings were not established in the information provided for this report.
The family’s position is therefore important to understanding the dispute fully, particularly whether its objections concern the absence of consent, the portrayal of Adedibu, the use of his name and likeness, or other aspects of the production.
For now, Oloketuyi has maintained that the filmmakers did not set out to disrespect the late politician or disregard his family. He insists that the project was developed after attempts to secure cooperation and that the material used was grounded in publicly available records.
The dispute underscores the challenges facing filmmakers who produce biographical works about prominent political figures. While such productions can preserve historical memories and encourage public discussion, they can also generate disagreements over consent, accuracy, privacy, reputation and the commercial use of personal legacies.
Whether the matter is resolved through further discussions or formal legal proceedings, the competing positions of the family and the filmmaker will be central to determining the future of the production and the wider issues surrounding the portrayal of the late Adedibu.
