The Ghanaian entertainment scene is buzzing with controversy following the meteoric rise of the viral hit song “Honourable Waawe.” The song, which gained immense popularity after the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) defeat by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the 2024 elections, has become the subject of a heated ownership dispute between renowned actor and entertainer Kwadwo Nkansah, known as Lilwin, and musician De Thompson. Lilwin vehemently asserts that the core concept of the song, including the title phrase, originated from him and that De Thompson essentially capitalized on his intellectual property without proper acknowledgment. This claim has sparked a debate about creative ownership and the often-blurred lines between inspiration and plagiarism in the music industry.
Lilwin’s claim centers on the argument that he conceived the idea and even composed the song “in spirit” before De Thompson’s physical creation of the track. He emphasizes the originality of the phrase “Honourable Waawe” and its connection to a film in which he played a leading role. According to Lilwin, this film served as the platform where he first introduced the term to the public, effectively establishing it as his creative property. He argues that De Thompson merely adapted this existing concept into a song, a process that doesn’t negate Lilwin’s initial ownership of the idea. The actor’s conviction underscores the importance of acknowledging the source of creative inspiration, particularly when it translates into substantial commercial success for another party.
The controversy surrounding “Honourable Waawe” highlights the complexities of intellectual property in the entertainment industry, where ideas often travel and evolve across different mediums. While De Thompson is credited with the musical composition and performance of the song, Lilwin argues that the fundamental essence – the catchy phrase and its satirical undertones – are his creation. This raises questions about the extent to which an idea can be owned and how to appropriately credit the originators of concepts that subsequently inspire creative works in different formats. The debate also brings to light the challenges of proving creative ownership, especially when there is no formal documentation or contractual agreements in place.
The song’s rapid ascent to viral fame has only intensified the dispute. “Honourable Waawe” captured the post-election sentiment with its satirical commentary on the NPP’s loss, resonating deeply with the Ghanaian public. Its catchy lyrics and relatable theme quickly transformed it into an anthem, further complicating the ownership debate. The song’s success has undoubtedly amplified the stakes for both Lilwin and De Thompson, as the financial and reputational implications associated with its ownership become more significant. This case also underscores the need for clearer guidelines and practices within the music and entertainment industry to protect the intellectual property rights of creators and prevent such disputes.
Adding fuel to the fire, the host of the interview in which Lilwin made his claims challenged the actor’s assertion, pointing out that the term “Honourable Waawe” only gained prominence due to its appearance in Lilwin’s film. This line of questioning suggests a viewpoint that public exposure, rather than initial conception, determines ownership. Lilwin, however, firmly rejected this interpretation, reiterating that his prior use of the term in the film solidifies his claim as the originator. This back-and-forth between Lilwin and the interviewer reflects a common tension in creative industries – the struggle to define the line between inspiration and appropriation.
The “Honourable Waawe” controversy serves as a cautionary tale for artists and entertainers about the importance of protecting their intellectual property. It underscores the need for clear communication, documentation, and potentially legal agreements when collaborating or sharing creative ideas. While the ultimate resolution of this dispute remains uncertain, it has undoubtedly sparked a crucial conversation about creative ownership, intellectual property rights, and the ethical considerations surrounding the adaptation of ideas across different artistic mediums. The case also highlights the need for a robust framework within the entertainment industry to address such disputes fairly and efficiently, ensuring that creators receive due credit and compensation for their original work.
