Sidumisile Mabena
Mbulelo Mpofu
THE glitter of the 24th National Arts Merit Awards (NAMA) ceremony has been eclipsed by a raging controversy over intellectual property (IP) rights, as prominent artistes publicly accuse organisers and peers of sidelining original creators in high-profile performances.
The weekend event at Harare International Conference Centre (HICC), lauded for its fashion and production, now faces scrutiny over alleged breaches of artistic ownership, sparking a national debate on collaboration ethics in Zimbabwe’s music industry.
Hip-hop heavyweight Stunner launched a scathing social media attack after watching artiste BaShupi perform his hit song, “Godo” at Nama without consultation or credit.
In a viral post, Stunner questioned the awards’ oversight: “Nama painofonera munhu asiri muridzi we song chiiko chinenge chichimboitika…Guy couldn’t even shout out Stunner pasong yausina kana kunyora.”
He emphasised the distinction between club gigs and national platforms, demanding respect for IP.
“A little respect on others’ intellectual property is required.”
The criticism highlights a core tension: when a featured artiste’s contribution becomes integral to a song’s identity, do they retain performance rights? Nama organisers have yet to clarify their vetting process for musical performances.
In a parallel clash, Gary Tight – son of late sungura legend Willom Tight – condemned Dino Mudondo and Nama for excluding his father’s legacy during a performance of the collaborative classic, “Chirangano Chedu”. Gary insisted the song’s history demanded acknowledgment of Willom’s contribution.
Mudondo fired back unequivocally: “Chirangano is my song. I featured three artists; I can perform it ndega (alone).” His stance raises critical questions: Does sole ownership entitle an artiste to erase collaborative history on national stages?
Online Reporter