A member of the Ajeniya family, Mosood Ajeniya, has questioned the omission of Balogun Ajeniya and other prominent historical figures from the recently released historical film, King Kosoko: The Battle for Lagos, arguing that the struggle portrayed in the movie was broader than the actions of the monarch alone.
Ajeniya, in a detailed reaction to the film, said while he welcomed the growing interest of Nigerian filmmakers in telling stories from the country’s history, he was disappointed that some indigenous military commanders, landowners and commercial figures who, according to him, played significant roles in nineteenth-century Lagos were left out of the narrative.
He argued that the story of Kosoko’s resistance to British intervention should not be viewed solely through a palace or royal lens.
‘The king was on the screen, but the history was much bigger than the king,’ he said.
Ajeniya particularly questioned the absence of Balogun Ajeniya, whom he described as a prominent military commander and influential member of the indigenous Eyingbeti-Ijebu landowning community.
He argued that Kosoko’s political and military strength was supported by a network of chiefs, merchants, landowners and military commanders who controlled important commercial and strategic parts of Lagos.
According to him, the omission of such figures risked creating the impression that the historical struggle was essentially a conflict involving only Kosoko and his royal rivals.
Ajeniya said historical accounts associated with his research identify Balogun Ajeniya and Akinpelu Ipossu as among the commanders involved in the defence of Lagos during the British bombardment of December 1851, popularly associated with the struggle known as Ogun Agidingbi.
He said the contribution of indigenous commanders and community leaders deserved greater recognition in contemporary interpretations of Lagos history.
Ajeniya also argued that the nineteenth-century political struggle in Lagos was closely connected to commercial interests, land ownership, kinship networks and control of trade.
He noted that the period should not be reduced to a simple contest between political heroes and villains, describing the history of the era as complex and shaped by competing economic, political and international interests.
He further drew attention to the role of Ereko and the indigenous landowning communities in the political structure of Lagos during the period.
According to him, Kosoko’s political movement involved several influential figures, including Akinpelu Ipossu, Agbaje, Kujeniya and Iyanda Oloko, whose contributions, he said, have received limited attention in popular historical narratives.
Ajeniya also said the story of the Kosoko movement did not end with the British bombardment of Lagos in 1851.
He maintained that Balogun Ajeniya remained politically active after the conflict and was later associated with the migration of members of the Kosoko faction to Epe, where, according to him, the exiles established a new political and commercial centre.
He said the history of the migration to Epe and the subsequent relationship between the exiles, local communities and British colonial forces could provide material for future Nigerian historical films.
Ajeniya added that Balogun Ajeniya’s legacy remains visible in present-day Lagos through the popular Balogun Market, which he linked to the historical influence of the Ajeniya family and indigenous commercial networks in the area.
He said many residents and traders who use the market may be unaware of the historical figures associated with its name and the role they played in the political and commercial development of nineteenth-century Lagos.
However, he stressed that his criticism was not intended to dismiss King Kosoko: The Battle for Lagos.
Rather, he commended the filmmakers for investing in Nigerian history and urged the country’s film industry to explore more forgotten historical figures and communities.
‘I am not saying the film is bad,’ he said. ‘I am glad it was made, and I want to see more films like it.
‘But when we make historical films, we must challenge ourselves to tell the wider story because cinema does more than entertain. It shapes what people remember about those who came before them.’
He warned against historical narratives that focus exclusively on monarchs while overlooking military commanders, merchants, community leaders and other individuals who contributed to major historical events.
‘History was not made only by crowned heads,’ he said. ‘It was made by communities, networks of kinship and the collective struggle of people defending their land and interests.’
Ajeniya therefore called on Nigerian filmmakers and historians to pay greater attention to lesser-known figures whose contributions, he said, remain hidden behind more prominent names in the country’s historical memory.