A viral Nando’s advertisement featuring Kwesta has ignited a high-stakes legal confrontation. While the advert celebrates South African culture by sampling a classic from the legendary Brenda Fassie, it has opened a wound regarding who actually profits when “MaBrrr’s” voice is used to sell chicken.
The R850,000 Dispute: Why Now?
- Nota’s Claim: Controversial music executive Nota Baloyi is demanding a R850,000 “slice” of the deal. He alleges that as a former business associate and strategist behind many of these rights-driven deals, his commission for the commercial use of the music has been bypassed.
- The “Spirit” Connection: The advert utilizes Kwesta’s hit song “Spirit,” which famously samples Brenda Fassie. This creates a complex “double-sync” legal issue: Nando’s had to clear the rights for Kwesta’s song, but the underlying Fassie sample requires its own set of approvals and royalty payouts to her estate.
- The Estate Battle: For years, Brenda Fassie’s estate—managed by her son Bongani Fassie—has been at the center of ownership disputes involving producers like Chicco Twala. This new lawsuit adds another layer of complexity to who is authorized to greenlight “MaBrrr” for corporate use.
Why It Matters to Readers:
This isn’t just about a chicken advert; it’s about Artist Sovereignty. It raises critical questions: Are legendary African artists being fairly compensated when their work is “resurrected” for 2026 brands? Or is the money disappearing into the pockets of middle-men and executives?
