By Thapelo Molefe
The terrorism trial of Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla resumed in the High Court in Durban on Monday, with proceedings focusing on whether her social media posts contributed to the July 2021 unrest.
The State argues that the “We See You” posts she made on X during the unrest fuelled the deadly riots.
Zuma-Sambudla, a former uMkhonto weSizwe Party MP and daughter of former president Jacob Zuma, has pleaded not guilty to charges of terrorism and incitement to commit public violence.
Her counsel, Dali Mpofu, resumed cross-examination of digital law expert Emma Sadleir.
Zuma-Sambudla faces charges linked to the widespread violence that followed Zuma’s arrest in July 2021.
The unrest left more than 350 people dead and caused an estimated R50 billion in economic damage, according to evidence before the court.
The court heard further testimony from Sadleir, who analysed Zuma-Sambudla’s Twitter activity during the period.
She said her conclusions were based entirely on publicly available information obtained directly from the accused’s social media accounts.
“I obtained all of the information that I rely on… from the accused’s social media account,” Sadleir said, adding that her analysis was conducted independently and without influence from investigators.
A central issue in the trial is whether Zuma-Sambudla’s posts amounted to incitement.
Sadleir testified that the content should not be assessed in isolation, but as part of a broader pattern.
“It was not one tweet, but a series of tweets in a 36-hour period,” she said, noting that 28 posts were made during that time.
According to her testimony, many of the posts followed a similar format and were published as unrest spread across KwaZulu-Natal.
She described them as reflecting “encouragement, jubilation and celebration” of the events at the time.
The court also heard that Zuma-Sambudla’s large social media following amplified the reach of her posts.
With more than 360,000 followers, Sadleir characterised her as an “influencer” whose content could spread rapidly online.
“Because of the size of her account… her content would have had a significantly greater impact,” she told the court.
However, the defence has challenged the State’s case, arguing that the posts constituted political expression and solidarity rather than direct incitement to violence.
INSIDE POLITICS