The Kiffness Says He Lost R500K Deal Over Charlie Kirk Defense, Sizwe Dhlomo Responds

by Zaghrah Anthony

South African musician David Scott, better known as The Kiffness, has taken to social media to reveal that he lost a R500,000 campaign deal after publicly defending the late US conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

“Just lost a R500k campaign because I defended Charlie Kirk. Worth it to be honest,” he tweeted, attaching a screenshot of what appeared to be the official campaign termination email.

The email cited “recent social media activity” as the reason for ending the partnership, warning that continued association might be perceived as endorsing views inconsistent with the agency’s values or the client’s positioning.

Sizwe Dhlomo Questions the Deal

The revelation sparked a wave of reactions online. Broadcaster Sizwe Dhlomo responded humorously on X, questioning the legitimacy of the deal:

“Lol! Who was dumb enough to pay you R500k to begin with?”

Dhlomo’s comment highlights the scrutiny and skepticism South African audiences often apply to large campaign deals, particularly when controversial political figures are involved.

Remembering Charlie Kirk

The controversy stems from The Kiffness’ defense of Charlie Kirk, who was tragically shot dead at the age of 31 during “The American Comeback Tour” at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Kirk, a conservative activist and media personality, had a polarizing presence in US politics.

In his posts, The Kiffness praised Kirk’s mission, describing him as a man whose words “now carry more value and weight than they ever would had he still been with us.”

He also noted that Kirk “embodied liberalism” in his style of debate, contrasting it with the online celebration of his death, which he strongly condemned.

South African Context: Musicians and Politics

The incident has stirred discussion about how South African artists engage with global political issues. The Kiffness’ defense of a foreign political figure cost him financially, but he framed it as a principled stance. Social media users have debated whether South African creatives should engage with international politics, especially when opinions might clash with corporate values.

Many fans expressed support for the musician, praising him for standing by his beliefs despite the financial setback. Others questioned whether it was wise to publicly take a stance on such a polarizing figure, reflecting the delicate balance artists must strike between personal convictions and brand partnerships.

Public Reaction

Reactions on X have been mixed:

  • Supporters praised his integrity, calling the R500K loss “worth it” for standing by one’s principles.

  • Critics, including Dhlomo, poked fun at the deal and questioned whether accepting such a high-profile campaign made sense in the first place.

  • The debate sparked a larger conversation on cancel culture, free speech, and accountability in the entertainment industry, as fans and critics weigh in on both sides of the issue.

The Kiffness’ experience underscores the real-world consequences for artists who engage publicly in politically sensitive matters, reminding South Africans that even social media posts can carry significant financial and reputational risks.

Source: The Citizen

Featured Image: X{@sapeople}