Internationally acclaimed composer Lebohang “Lebo M” Morake has broken his silence on his legal dispute with comedian Learnmore Jonasi over the meaning of the iconic Zulu lyrics “Nants’ ingonyama bakithi Baba”, saying the controversy is about protecting African cultural heritage rather than attacking comedy or freedom of expression.
In a statement issued by his company Till Dawn Entertainment, trading as Lebo M Productions, on Tuesday, Lebo M clarified the outcome of the legal proceedings, confirming that he had paid Jonasi US$39,560 (about R690,000) in attorneys’ fees following a court order issued on August 28, 2026.
Lebo M said the court had declined to award an additional amount of approximately US$91,000 that was sought by Jonasi’s legal team through a proposed fee multiplier.
“The additional amount reportedly sought through the multiplier was not granted,” the statement said.
What started the dispute?
During an appearance on the ONE54 podcast, Jonasi jokingly translated the Zulu chant “Nants’ Ingonyama” as “Look, there’s a lion. Oh my God.” The joke went viral online.
Why was Lebo M upset?
Lebo M argued that the chant has deeper cultural significance, representing royalty and African heritage, and that Jonasi’s interpretation misrepresented its meaning and damaged his reputation and artistic legacy.
What happened in court?
In March 2026, Lebo M filed a lawsuit seeking $27 million (approximately R435 million) in damages, accusing Jonasi of defamation and other wrongdoing.
Jonasi maintained that his translation of the lyrics is not false and that he speaks conversational Zulu, while Lebo M’s company argues that the interpretation and cultural significance of the words deserve serious consideration.
In July 2026, the lawsuit was dismissed.
In August 2026 ,a US federal court ordered Lebo M to pay Jonasi $39,560 (about R640,000) in legal fees after Jonasi successfully challenged the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects certain forms of speech from lawsuits.
Lebo M’s company stressed that the court’s ruling on legal fees should not be interpreted as a determination of every substantive issue surrounding the cultural dispute.
It argued that the broader questions about cultural interpretation, artistic legacy and the meaning of the lyrics had not been fully examined at trial.
“No one won. No one lost,” he said, explaining that the phrase reflected its interpretation of the broader cultural disagreement and was not a denial of the court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees to Jonasi.
Lebo M said his company also acknowledged the success of Jonasi and his team’s social media campaign, which brought widespread attention to the dispute, but expressed concern about how viral commentary could influence public perceptions of culturally significant creative work.
He maintained that the matter was not an attack on comedy, freedom of expression or Jonasi’s rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Instead, he said, the disagreement concerned the meaning and cultural significance of lyrics associated with a globally recognised musical and cinematic legacy.
“At the heart of its position is a simple principle: African stories deserve to be understood in their cultural context, even when they become part of global popular culture,” the statement said.
He further disclosed that his company’s case had been withdrawn without prejudice while it reviewed its legal representation and considered its available options.
According to the statement, the withdrawal followed the termination of one of its legal representatives, whom the company alleges made submissions to the court without authorisation.
He said his company was continuing to assess its legal position and possible next steps.
Lebo M emphasised that the withdrawal should not be interpreted as abandoning his compnay’s concerns about cultural interpretation and artistic legacy.
Lebo M, whose work has helped bring African musical traditions, language and storytelling to international audiences, has long been associated with The Lion King franchise.
He said the controversy had highlighted the need for a broader conversation about African heritage, cultural ownership and artistic responsibility.
He argued that humour and creative expression could coexist with meaningful discussions about cultural authenticity and respect for heritage.
“The conversation is bigger than a comedian. Bigger than a viral clip. Bigger than a courtroom headline,” the statement said.
He maintained that African cultural expression should be treated with respect and that the meaning of historically significant creative work should not be reduced to a passing social media controversy.
