In South Africa; Sizwe Dhlomo Rekindles Feud with Vusi Thembekwayo Over "Rich People Problem" Video


 

 The long-standing public dispute between media personality Sizwe Dhlomo and entrepreneur Vusi Thembekwayo has flared up again, sparked by a viral video featuring Thembekwayo's take on "rich people problems."

On Tuesday, July 2, 2025, Dhlomo took to his official X account, formerly Twitter, to openly mock Thembekwayo, alleging he had "exposed himself" once more. The controversial clip shows Thembekwayo being asked about the biggest challenge he faces as a wealthy Black man. His response? "Finding reliable watch repairers."

This answer immediately caught Dhlomo's attention, providing ample ammunition for his critique. "Yo @VusiThembekwayo, you should have just told them the truth, that you’re not rich. Look now, exposed yourself again. But, ke, we already know about you & watches,” Dhlomo tweeted, directly tagging Thembekwayo.

Dhlomo's comments quickly gained traction, igniting a fresh wave of debate among their respective followers. While some lauded Dhlomo for what they perceived as a necessary call-out of a "bizarre flex," others accused him of being petty and overly fixated on Thembekwayo.

Not content with just one jab, Dhlomo followed up with another post, questioning the authenticity of Thembekwayo's claim about watch repairs. He argued that genuine luxury timepieces typically come with direct support channels. “That doesn’t matter. If your watch is authentic, you take it to the dealer/manufacturer. Simple. It could be a 5th generation hand-me down but they will still service it," Dhlomo explained, implying Thembekwayo's statement lacked credibility.

This latest exchange echoes previous instances where Dhlomo has publicly challenged Thembekwayo's public image, including questioning his claims of affluence and commenting on his reported legal troubles. As is often the case with their public spats, social media users remain divided, with some supporting Dhlomo's direct approach and others dismissing his remarks as unnecessary personal attacks.



Comments