Desmond Wells vs Maroela Media
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
12 January 2026
Finding: Complaint 32397
Podcast: Maroela Media
Interviewer: Mizanne van Wyk
Date of publication: 16 November 2025
Headline: Dis ‘Troumateriaal’ vir Brendan Peyper
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint by Mr Desmond Wells; a written response on behalf of Maroela Media by Mr Wian Spies of Hurter Spies Attorneys along with two annexures; and a written reply by Mr Wells.
Complaint
The complainant submits that the podcast is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.8, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Press Code.
1. Summary of podcast
1.1. The podcast is an interview with the musician Brendan Peyper, with a particular focus on the recent release of his new songs and his music shows planned for December 2025.
1.1.1. In addition, the 13.52-minute interview asks Peyper about his relocation to Pretoria from Bloemfontein, his opinions on artificial intelligence in relation to the music industry and the state of his financial affairs in light of recent Sunday newspaper articles.
1.1.2. In response to a question about his critics, Peyper refers to a court case in which he was involved.
1.1.3. The interview concludes with a discussion about the inspiration behind Peyper’s recently released songs and a message to his fans.
2. Arguments
Desmond Wells
2.1. According to the complainant, the podcast contains false, misleading and defamatory statements “concerning my person, dignity and professional life”.
2.1.1. He says it contains claims by Brendan Peyper that he “won” a court case against him and also that there is a “mountain of evidence” against him. He rejects both these claims as false.
2.1.2. He also says that, while Peyper states that he “does not run to the media”, he is doing precisely that.
2.1.3. He contends that he is clearly identifiable as “die ander sanger” (“another singer”) to whom Peyper refers and maintains that he is the only singer with whom Peyper has had a public dispute.
2.1.4. He also says Peyper refers to him as “the jackals that bite” and that he regards this as a demeaning and insulting metaphor.
2.1.5. He submits that Peyper creates the false impression that he (Wells) is “the aggressor” and that he (Peyper) is “the victim”.
2.1.6. He contends that the interview creates a negative and misleading perception of him, and he believes that the public will interpret this as fact.
2.2. The complainant submits that the interview should not have been published because of its “defamatory potential” and that Maroela Media ought to have known that publishing it would harm his reputation.
2.2.1. He says that the interview deals with a well-known dispute between him and Peyper. However, no attempt was made to obtain his right of reply before it was published.
2.2.2. In light of the above, he argues that the publication failed the test of reasonable publication as set out in National Media Ltd v Bogoshi.
2.2.3. He views the actions of Maroela Media as negligent or, alternatively, as reckless.
2.3. The complainant reiterates that, even though his name was not expressly mentioned in the interview, he is clearly identifiable for a number of reasons.
2.3.1. These include, among others, that he is the only singer with whom Peyper has had a public dispute; the context of “that case” clearly refers to their dispute; and the “description used correlates directly with previous publications involving me”.
2.3.2. He submits that this satisfies the legal test for identification. In support of this argument, he refers to the following court cases: Le Roux v Dey, O’Keeffe v Argus Printing & Publishing and De Waal v Roderick & Co.
2.4. The complainant asserts that, as a direct result of the interview, he has suffered severe reputational damage, harm to his professional standing, emotional distress and public humiliation.
2.4.1. He argues that this harm continues for as long as the interview remains accessible.
2.5. The complainant states that Maroela Media refused to remove the interview after he formally requested it to do so. He says its refusal compounds the original harm and is in breach of the Press Code.
2.5.1. He states that the only proposal from the publication was to add a “neutral note” and contends that this would, in fact, “further identify” him.
2.6. The complainant maintains that Maroela Media breached the Press Code, namely Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.8, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.
2.6.1. He requests that Maroela Media be ordered to remove the interview from all its platforms; publish a correction and apology; acknowledge that the content was inaccurate and published without adequate verification; and refrain from future publication “on this matter without proper verification and balance”.
Maroela Media
2.7. In reply, the respondent submits that the interview with Peyper was about the recent release of his new songs, his view on the effect of artificial intelligence on the music industry and “his general well-being”.
2.7.1. However, it says, the complainant conveniently fails to provide the context in which the interview was conducted and appears to argue that the sole purpose of the interview was to discuss him, his conduct and the history between him and Peyper.
2.7.2. It states that this was not the purpose of the interview and includes a screenshot that describes the interview as being about Peyper’s recent album, Troumateriaal, his journey in the music industry, his provisional sequestration and his return to Pretoria (Annexure A).
2.8. The respondent states that, at minute 7:10, the journalist asks Peyper to comment on rumours in local newspapers that he was recently sequestrated. It says this provided him with an opportunity to give his side of the story – “a bona fide act in terms of the Press Code”.
2.8.1. It maintains that this part of the interview has nothing to do with Wells and Peyper, and that it does not mention any names when it refers to different role-players.
2.9. At minute 10:05, the journalist asks Peyper how he deals with the “klein jakkalsies” (“small jackals”) in his life. The respondent states that this question and the wording used derives from the Afrikaans idiom, “Dis die klein jakkalsies wat die wingerde verniel” (“It’s the small jackals that spoil the vines”).
2.9.1. According to the respondent, this means that “it is the small mistakes, issues and people in the beginning that will become bigger issues later on, or will cause you the most harm in future”.
2.10. The respondent states that at no point did the journalist specifically invite Peyper to talk about any issue. Instead, it says, she was referring to “the long list of rumours circulating in local newspapers relating to Mr Peyper and all his doings”.
2.10.1. Peyper spontaneously mentioned a case between him and another singer which he believed he had won. It says he then refers in general to all the cases in the past where he opted to settle rather than to prosecute claims against anyone.
2.10.2. The respondent adds that Peyper does not insinuate that he has a mountain of evidence against the complainant specifically, but alleges that he has a mountain of options which he could have pursued against people in the previous cases.
2.10.3. In the view of the publication, this does not mean that Peyper has some or other claim or information that could be used to the detriment of the complainant. As such, it believes it was not necessary to approach Wells for comment.
2.10.4. It further contends that the entire complaint relates to what was said within 56 seconds of the total interview of 13 minutes and 52 seconds.
2.10.5. The respondent reiterates that it is important to understand the context in which Peyper’s words were used. It submits that the complainant seems to make as if much of what was said applies to him when Peyper was not even referring to him.
2.11. The publication notes that the complainant addressed a letter to it on 18 November 2025 in which he alleges that Peyper’s statements are “detrimental” to his personal reputation, professional prospects and personal dignity. It says he also threatened criminal and civil proceedings (Annexure B).
2.11.1. It responded on the same day and indicated that it would provide Wells with an opportunity to respond to Peyper’s “allegations” through a note posted below the recording of the interview on its website.
2.11.2. However, it warned the complainant that he would then be identified as a matter of fact as the person Peyper spoke about in his interview when he (Peyper) never mentioned him (Wells) directly.
2.11.3. The respondent states that, from what it can establish, it is clear that Peyper has been involved in many legal battles against various individuals. The reference to “al die mense” (“all the people”) clearly means Peyper referred to a group of people and not specifically to Wells.
2.11.4. It submits that the only point which may possibly be connected to the complainant is the claim that Peyper won some case against him.
2.11.5. With regard to the complainant’s statement that he withdrew a case against Peyper, it states that, in legalese, when one party withdraws a case against another party, “the party against whom the application was withdrawn did generally win the case”. In any event, it adds, that is the opinion of Peyper and not of the publication.
2.11.6. The respondent also points out that it did not contact the complainant before publication because it did not believe there were any statements that required comment. It adds that the question of whether a matter is withdrawn or not is settled in court.
2.12. The respondent denies that the podcast contravenes Clauses 1.1 to 1.7 of the Press Code. It maintains that the content relates to the opinion of a third party and that “the opinion of the said third party is also a fact in this particular instance”.
2.12.1. It further denies that the content of the podcast is in breach of Clauses 3.1 to 3.3. It argues that it cannot in any way harm someone’s dignity for one party to state that he believes he won a case against another party.
2.12.2. It also denies violating Clause 1.8 and points out that it offered the complainant an opportunity to comment on Peyper’s statements but that he declined to take up the opportunity.
2.12.3. The respondent adds that it is trite that, where someone allegedly suffers reputational damage, harm to professional standing, emotional distress and public humiliation, such a person must prove “the said prejudice”.
2.13. The respondent adds that it is clear that the publication does not work with Peyper and, as such, nobody believes that it endorses Peyper’s views. It further contends that it is not obliged to verify the correctness of the opinions of third parties.
2.13.1. It goes on to argue that Peyper’s comments fall under Clause 7.2 of the Press Code.
And, it suggests, it is not even “extreme, unjust, unbalanced or prejudiced” to publish an interview in which a person alleges he won a case which was withdrawn against him.
2.13.2. While it may be an exaggeration, the publication says, it is not stated with malice. Furthermore, it is “in the interest of the public to know the legal battle is over”, that all material facts were considered and that the statement is true or, at the very least, reasonably true. Moreover, it is clear that the comment by Peyper is his own.
Desmond Wells
2.14. The complainant disagrees with the respondent’s reply and maintains that it contains a number of factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations and legal errors.
2.14.1. He starts off by saying that the public clearly understood that Peyper’s remarks refer to him and claims that Maroela Media knows this.
2.14.2. He rejects the argument that “no reasonable person” could have believed that Peyper was referring to him. He dismisses this as false and says that various comments from members of the public show that listeners identify him as the singer in question.
2.14.3. He states that, among other things, the public knows that he is the only singer who has ever had a public legal dispute with Peyper, that this case was widely reported and that he is the only singer whose identity was already linked to Peyper in the media.
2.14.4. He says it is therefore foreseeable that the public would conclude that Peyper’s statements were about him.
2.14.5. He maintains that this alone created a duty on the part of Maroela Media to offer him a right of reply before publication, but says it failed to do so.
2.15. The complainant further takes issue with the respondent’s argument that saying Peyper won a case against him cannot harm his dignity, that the reference to a “mountain of evidence” was a general remark and not specifically about him, and that his comments fall under “protected opinion”.
2.15.1. He maintains that Peyper did not win a case against him and submits that this suggests wrongdoing by him, that Peyper’s version was vindicated by a court, that his (Wells) claims lacked merit and that he was at fault. He rejects these suggestions as false.
2.15.2. With regard to Peyper’s comment about a “mountain of evidence”, the complainant rejects the argument that he used the word “mense” (plural) and not “mens” (singular), and therefore could not have been referring to him.
2.15.3. He states that this segment of the podcast contains a discussion about a specific court case that involves him and “another singer” and also refers to claims that Peyper has evidence. He maintains that these statements were made in a manner that the public already understood to be referring to him.
2.15.4. The complainant maintains that, even if Peyper did not explicitly name him, the Press Code states that a person must be given a right of reply if he or she can reasonably be identified.
2.15.5. He argues that Maroela Media did identify him and submits that it admitted that publishing his right of reply would further identify him.
2.15.6. He says this means that the publication knew that the interview identified him and that it knew that the public linked Peyper’s statements to him. Yet, he states, the publication refused to contact him beforehand – in direct breach of the Press Code.
2.15.7. The complainant further states that the offer to publish his response “after the harm was done does not cure the breach”.
2.15.8. He says that the Press Code requires verification before publication where reasonably possible (Clause 1.7) and the right of reply before publication when someone is identifiable (Clause 1.8).
2.16. The complainant further rejects the argument that Peyper was merely giving an “opinion”.
2.16.1. He says that opinions are protected only when these are clearly presented as comment, are based on facts that are true or reasonably true and are not malicious.
2.16.2. In this instance, he states, Peyper’s claim that he “won” a court case is a statement of fact and not opinion. He further says that the purported facts are untrue, that the implications are defamatory and that “the attack” was made while discussing a legal dispute between him and Peyper.
2.16.3. He adds that Clause 7.2 does not give the media the right to publish false statements in the guise of “opinion”.
2.16.4. He notes that the harm to his reputation is not hypothetical and maintains that public comments link the statements to him. He again refers to the reputational damage, humiliation and emotional distress that he says he experienced.
2.16.5. He believes that the respondent dismisses this “harm” without addressing the evidence.
3. Analysis
3.1. A central part of this complaint is that the complainant believes he can be identified in the Maroela Media podcast even though he is not expressly named by Pepyer during the interview.
3.1.1. The complainant offers several arguments to support his contention that he is identifiable. These include that there is a public dispute between him and Peyper, that there is a court case in which both of them were involved and that there are a number of media reports that link him and Peyper (see points 2.3.1 and 2.14.3).
3.1.2. A cursory search of the internet confirms that a feud between the two singers has indeed been the subject of certain media reports (including, among others, in Netwerk24 and Rapport).
3.1.3. There can also be little doubt that followers of the two musicians, and presumably many others who follow Afrikaans music, will recognise the reference in the podcast to “die ander sanger” and a court case as being a reference to Wells.
3.1.4. However, the fact that some people – such as those identified in point 3.1.3 – will be able to identify Wells as the singer in question does not necessarily assist his argument that the podcast has a negative impact on his reputation.
3.1.5. In light of the fact that some people will already be familiar with the feud between the two singers, it is unclear how identifying Wells in the podcast will tarnish his reputation. After all, such information is already in the public domain.
3.1.6. Accordingly, there is no merit in the argument that the podcast is in breach of Clause 3.3 of the Press Code.
3.2. The reason why the complainant repeatedly complains that he can be identified in the podcast is because he believes that this entitles him to a right of reply (see point 2.14.5).
3.2.1. However, there is little merit in this aspect of the argument. The only reference that can be deemed to be specifically directed at Wells is Peyper’s claim that he won a court case against “die ander sanger”.
3.2.2. It is important to note, though, that this reference is a single comment made during the course of an interview that lasts for 13 minutes and 52 seconds.
3.2.3. This hardly makes the complainant the focal point of the interview. The main focus of the interview is Peyper’s recently released songs and the inspiration behind those songs (see points 1.1 and 1.1.3).
3.2.4. It is therefore highly debatable whether Peyper’s one-off comment is sufficient for Wells to be regarded as the subject of critical reportage in the podcast.
3.2.5. In my view, there was no compelling reason to obtain a comment from the complainant. As such, the podcast is not deemed to be in breach of Clause 1.8 of the Press Code.
3.2.6. In any event, the respondent offered the complainant the right of reply after he lodged his complaint (point 2.12.2). However, he elected not to accept the offer.
3.2.7. One of the reasons that the complainant gives for declining to accept the respondent’s offer – namely that a note would further identify him (2.5.1) – is most peculiar in view of his repeated contention that he is clearly identifiable in the podcast.
3.3. Peyper’s claim that he won a court case against the complainant is another major point of contention for Wells (see points 2.1.1 and 2.15.1), which he presumably regards as a breach of Clause 1.1 and/or Clause 1.2 of the Press Code.
3.3.1. In the greater scheme of things, though, this is essentially a technical matter. The fact remains that, by the complainant’s own admission, the case against Peyper was removed from the court roll.
3.3.2. Whether or not this constitutes a legal victory for Peyper is a matter best left to the legal terrain. The point remains that, whatever the reason, the court case against Peyper did not proceed.
3.4. Furthermore, there was no need to verify Peyper’s claim that he won the court case against “die ander sanger”, as the respondent argues in point 2.15.8.
3.4.1. As the Press Ombud notes in Russell vs Media24 publications, “[t]here is no obligation on journalists to verify all claims” due to constraints in their resources and powers.
3.4.2. It is only when a claim is obviously doubtful that the Press Code imposes such an obligation. In this instance, there was no obvious reason to doubt Peyper’s claim that he won the court case in question.
3.4.3. As such, there is no breach of Clause 1.7 of the Press Code.
3.5. With regard to the complainant’s objection to Peyper’s claim that he has a “mountain of evidence” (“berg van bewyse”) (points 2.15 and 2.15.2), it should be noted that this comment was part of a general reference to “mense” (“people”).
3.5.1. In other words, it was not directed at any specific individual. As such, there is no substance in the claim that Wells in particular was the subject of this comment.
3.6. The complainant further objects to the use of the word “jackals” in the podcast and regards it as demeaning and insulting (point 2.1.4), and presumably complains about this reference in relation to Clause 3.3 of the Press Code.
3.6.1. However, this word is used in the context of an Afrikaans idiomatic expression that refers to “klein jakkalsies” (“small jackals”).
3.6.2. In this regard, the respondent provides a persuasive explanation about the meaning of the phrase “klein jakkalsies” (see points 2.9 and 2.9.1).
3.6.3. In light of the above, it is clear that Peyper does not refer to Wells in particular as a jackal (in other words, as the complainant appears to suggest, as a dishonest or villainous person).
3.6.4. As such, this aspect of the complaint is devoid of any substance.
4. Finding
The complaints that the podcast is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.8 and 3.3 of the Press Code are dismissed for the reasons outlined under points 3.1 to 3.6 of my Analysis.
I have disregarded the complaints that the podcast is in breach of Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 as the complainant does not explain or provide any evidence as to how these clauses are relevant.
Appeals procedure
The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za
Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombudsman
12 January 2026