Online
Mbulelo Mpofu, [email protected]
IT was funny, till it wasn’t as American-based comedian, Learnmore Jonasi has learnt that “funny” is subjective, being slapped for a staggering US$27 million over “Circle of Life” “mistranslation” of The Lion King chant.
This seismic legal clash, unfolding in a California courtroom, sends shockwaves far beyond Hollywood, offering critical lessons for Zimbabwean comedians, artistes, and cultural commentators navigating the complex terrain of satire, cultural representation, and international law.
The lawsuit, filed by South African composer Lebo M (real name Lebohang Morake) against Zimbabwean stand-up comedian Jonasi, centres on a moment during Jonasi’s appearance on the podcast, “One54 Africa.” Jonasi sang the iconic Zulu chant “Nants’ingonyama bakithi Baba” from Disney’s The Lion King and translated it as, “Look, there’s a lion. Oh my god.”
While Jonasi intended it as a joke, Lebo M alleges the comedian, “presented this as authoritative fact, not comedy,” and “mocked the chant’s cultural significance with exaggerated imitations.”
The court documents pull no punches, stating: “Jonasi’s reduction to ‘Look, there’s a lion. Oh my god’ is not a simplified translation—it is a fabricated, trivialising distortion, meant as a sick joke for unlawful self-profit and destruction of the imaginative and artistic work of Lebo M.” Lebo M insists the true translation is “All hail the king, we all bow in the presence of the king,” continuing to “through you we will emerge victoriously.”
The whole situation has opened a can of worms, with netizens weighing in.
“Let’s address this issue between Lebo M and Learnmore Jonasi. Firstly, let’s be clear, that was not a joke and Learnmore should stop saying that it was a joke. For his own defense. The truth of the matter is he did not tell a joke. He was asked a simple question, and he responded to that question accurately. He translated the phrase accurately…but…he delivered it in a comedic fashion. And there is nothing wrong in that, nothing at all. This was an opportunity for Lebo M to also laugh about it (because the delivery was quite funny if we are completely honest) and then also take the opportunity to essentially explain the meaning… the deep cultural meaning as he meant for it to be received. And now…here is where Mr Lebo M really missed the mark. There is a whole generation that have no idea who he is, and I think his ego got rubbed the wrong way because he was used to living in the fame and great standing that he had had for so many decades before from my generation who know of him. But what he fails to realize is there is a WHOLE generation of young people who know and have watched The Lion King..but who have no idea who he is,” wrote Mandipa Mashingaidze on Facebook.
Lesson 1: The perilous subjectivity of “Funny” across cultures
Jonasi’s case starkly illustrates that humour, especially satire targeting cultural touchstones, carries immense risk. What resonates as sharp wit in Harare or Bulawayo may land as deeply offensive or culturally disrespectful in Johannesburg or Los Angeles. Zimbabwean creatives aiming for international audiences must exercise heightened sensitivity.
Satire requires understanding the weight of what you’re satirising. Comedians must meticulously research cultural contexts and anticipate potential interpretations beyond their immediate audience.
Lesson 2: Distinguishing satire from misrepresentation is paramount
Lebo M’s core legal argument hinges on the claim that Jonasi presented his mistranslation as fact, not parody. This distinction is crucial. Defences for satire often rely on the clear context of humour and exaggeration. Jonasi’s defenders, like podcast co-host Godfrey, point to actor Seth Rogen making a similar flippant translation years prior without repercussion. However, context matters: Rogen did so as an actor involved in the film’s promotion, likely perceived as playful banter within the franchise bubble. Jonasi, an independent comedian critiquing the franchise from the outside, presented his version while correcting others (“don’t mess up our language like that”), potentially blurring the line between factual correction and comedic riff for viewers. Zimbabwean creatives must ensure their satirical intent is unambiguous, avoiding any implication that they are stating factual misinformation, especially regarding culturally sensitive material.
Lesson 3: The high stakes of Intellectual Property and cultural ownership
The astronomical US$27 million figure underscores the immense value placed on intellectual property, particularly iconic cultural contributions like Lebo M’s chant. While Jonasi framed his joke as criticism of Disney profiting from “simplistic narratives about Africa,” he targeted a specific, copyrighted, and culturally significant element created by an individual African artiste. This lawsuit highlights the fierce protection artists may exert over their work and its interpretation. Zimbabwean artists and commentators engaging with global IP, whether critiquing films, music, or literature, must tread carefully. Parody enjoys some legal protection, but misrepresentation causing reputational or financial harm to the rights holder can trigger severe consequences. Understanding copyright law, especially in jurisdictions like the US, is non-negotiable for internationally active creatives.
Lesson 4: Personal attacks escalate conflicts
The dispute escalated beyond artistic differences into personal animosity. Jonasi revealed Lebo M privately messaged him, accusing him of “disrespect” and escalating to calling him a “self-hating negro,” an “idiot,” and a “wannabe comedian.” Such personal attacks, whether delivered privately or becoming public, poison the well and make resolution infinitely harder. For Zimbabwean creatives embroiled in disputes, maintaining professionalism and focusing on the substantive issue, however heated, is vital. Personal insults can damage reputations and undermine legitimate arguments on both sides.
Lesson 5: Resilience and turning adversity into material (But consult a lawyer!)
Jonasi demonstrated a comedian’s instinctive resilience. He was infamously served court papers while performing on stage. Rather than retreating, he immediately incorporated the event into his act: “I just got served after saying a joke about Lion King and I’m now paying for it…I’m now raising money, a GoFundMe page. I now have gluten-allergy anxiety, I’m now American,” he joked to audience laughter. He also publicly appealed for legal help via social media. While this showcases adaptability, his desperate Facebook Reel (“I’m officially sued for telling a joke…What kind of stupid world do we live in?”) underscores the real fear and financial burden. The lesson? Zimbabwean creatives facing legal threats must prioritise seeking qualified legal counsel immediately. Turning a lawsuit into stage material might garner short-term attention, but sound legal advice is the only path to navigating the long-term consequences. As Jonasi pleaded, “I need a very good lawyer.”
The core Question: Satire or Slander?
The Jonasi-Lebo M battle forces a difficult question: When does provocative comedy cross the line into harmful misrepresentation? Is Jonasi being punished for biting satire aimed at a corporate giant’s portrayal of Africa? Or did he recklessly distort and disrespect an individual artist’s deeply personal cultural contribution for laughs? Lebo M sees a “fabricated distortion” causing irreparable harm; Jonasi sees an absurd overreaction stifling free speech and comedy.
For Zimbabwe’s vibrant comedic and creative community, this high-profile clash serves as a stark cautionary tale.
It underscores the necessity of cultural sensitivity, the critical importance of clear satirical context versus factual presentation, the immense value (and fierce protection) of intellectual property, the dangers of personal vitriol, and the absolute imperative of understanding legal risks and securing expert advice when operating on the global stage.
The line between “funny” and legally perilous is thinner, and the potential fallout far greater, than many may have imagined. With the lawsuit unfolding, Zimbabwean artistes watching from afar would be wise to heed its lessons: innovate, critique, and create boldly, but navigate the complexities of culture, representation, and international law with eyes wide open. – Follow on X @MbuleloMpofu
Online Reporter