Legal Challenge Against Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla
Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, daughter of former South African president Jacob Zuma, is facing legal charges related to her social media activity during the July 2021 civil unrest in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal. Her lawyers have challenged the state to provide concrete evidence linking her tweet “we see you” on X to the widespread violence that resulted in over 300 deaths and billions of Rand in economic losses.
Zuma-Sambudla has pleaded not guilty to three counts related to her social media posts during the unrest. The first count accuses her of incitement to commit terrorism, with the state alleging that she unlawfully and intentionally encouraged others to engage in terrorist activities between 29 June and 15 July 2021. The second count involves incitement to commit violence, where the state claims she instigated or procured others to assemble with the intent to disturb public peace or invade the rights of others. The third count relates to a violation of Section 17 of the Riotous Assemblies Act, which prohibits illegal assembling with the intention to cause a riot.
During the trial, Zuma-Sambudla’s attorney, Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, cross-examined Major General Gopal Gounden from the Directorate of Priority Crimes Investigations (DPCI). Mpofu questioned how the sharing of images and videos of burning trucks and property, along with the caption “we see you,” could be interpreted as incitement. He argued that the state’s case against Zuma-Sambudla lacks substance, suggesting that her high-profile status as the daughter of a former president might be the real reason for the charges.
Mpofu further questioned why the police did not charge individuals who posted similar content without accompanying inciting messages. He emphasized that the state needs to provide clear evidence that Zuma-Sambudla’s tweets were directly linked to the unrest.
In response, the prosecution, led by Advocate Yuri Gangai, argued that while others may have shared images of destruction, Zuma-Sambudla’s message “we see you” was unique and carried an implied endorsement of the actions taking place. Gangai pointed to earlier tweets from Zuma-Sambudla, written in Zulu, that read: “Comrades, the time for fighting using cellphones is now over, amandla!” These messages, combined with the subsequent images and captions, were presented as evidence of incitement.
Gounden, who served as the coordinator of the team investigating the unrest, testified that the violence was well-coordinated and executed. He dismissed the idea that the unrest was a spontaneous reaction to the incarceration of Jacob Zuma. According to Gounden, there were 164 WhatsApp groups created specifically to instigate unrest in response to the Constitutional Court’s decision to jail Zuma.
He revealed that police focused on eight of these groups, which actively coordinated the unrest. Gounden stated that these groups provided direct instructions to people on the ground, detailing what to do and when. He also noted that the most active groups were located in eThekwini, with one group having 316 members. These groups were reportedly created around 29 June 2021, the day after Zuma’s arrest.
The state argued that Zuma-Sambudla’s public status as the daughter of a former president and her large following on X (124,000 followers) gave her significant influence. They claimed that her tweets were taken seriously by many, contributing to the unrest. While the state conceded that Zuma-Sambudla was not directly linked to the WhatsApp groups, some of the group members were her followers on X.
The case continues, with both sides presenting their arguments and evidence. The outcome of this trial could have significant implications for freedom of speech and the role of social media in political activism in South Africa.