Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla was on authorities’ radar long before July 2021 riots, court hears

Former president Jacob Zuma’s daughter Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla was being monitored by police “long before” the July 2021 riots, it emerged on Monday in the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court in Durban as  Zuma-Sambudla’s trial for incitement began.

Major General Gopaul Govender, the State’s first witness, told the court that law enforcement officers had been keeping an eye on Zuma-Sambudla in the weeks leading up to the riots.

Govender said the monitoring took place as South Africa awaited the Constitutional Court’s ruling in the contempt of court case against Zuma, saying that the tense political climate and Zuma-Sambudla’s position as Zuma’s daughter formed part of the broader context in which the police were preparing for potential fallout.

“We set ourselves up for any of the eventualities,” he said.

Govender said that although the court’s decision to imprison Zuma for 15 months came as a “surprise”, he and his colleagues “immediately realised that … there is going to be more to the outcome. And as I said, she has been a person of interest, but when the tweet on the 30th [of June 2021] came out, that’s when it sparked our interest to look deeper into her,” he said.

Not guilty plea

Zuma-Sambudla (42) was arrested in January after she handed herself over at the Durban Central Police Station and was later released on a warning.

She is charged under the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act.

On Monday, she pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

At the centre of the trial are scores of social media posts that Zuma-Sambudla published on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The State alleges that, with a following of more than 100,000 users, she used these posts to “incite, encourage and support” acts of violence, looting, road blockages, arson and other criminal activity during the July 2021 riots, which left more than 350 people dead and caused more than R50-billion in economic losses.

The prosecutor, advocate Yuri Gangai, said the State would present tweets, witness testimony and further evidence to show that Zuma-Sambudla “intentionally and unlawfully” inflamed public unrest.

Read more: South Africa’s three bloodiest days: 342 dead and we are still in the dark

“We will show that the accused understood the volatility of that moment, and she chose to fuel it,” said Gangai.

He urged the court to consider the matter both subjectively and objectively.

Read more: Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla calls on Shamila Batohi to drop terrorism charges

“In other words, what did the accused intend to do, and also … how did the people who received the messages interpret them? What message did they get from it?”

Gangai added, “It has become common for the powerful to weaponise the pain of the poor, to make fires they never intend to stand in.”

Zuma-Sambudla’s defence

Zuma-Sambudla’s lawyer, advocate Dali Mpofu, told the court that he and Zuma-Sambudla “accept that there was widespread violence, it was abhorrent, and many people lost their lives. Everybody accepts that it should never have happened. The only business that brings us here today is not about that; it’s whether this accused person is guilty of inciting all those things or not.”

Among the posts singled out by the State was one in which Zuma-Sambudla wrote “we see you”, seemingly responding to different looting incidents.

Prosecutors argue that this tweet, along with others, indicated her support for the violent unrest that followed her father’s imprisonment.

Mpofu challenged the relevance of these posts in court, arguing that many referred to events that had already occurred and were already trending at least on social media.

He argued that Zuma-Sambudla was being unfairly singled out because she was Zuma’s daughter.

“Is there any other person in South Africa who is sitting in the dock because they said ‘we see you’ 19 or 100 times?” he asked.

Govender responded, “Not because of the use of this specific word. There are preceding tweets to this tweet; it’s a build-up of tweets that would have given us a reason to say that the context in which that was said has an influence or incitement side of it.”

The State highlighted another post in which Zuma-Sambudla urged that it was no longer a moment for fighting online but for action “outside”, tying her message to the Radical Economic Transformation agenda associated with her father.

Mpofu asked Govender whether he supported Radical Economic Transformation and whether he believed that the struggle to achieve it should be intensified.

“Because you believe that fight should be intensified, does that make you a criminal?” he asked.

Govender replied: “Action resulting from those comments would definitely make it a criminal act.”

Mpofu argued that holding a political position, including support for Radical Economic Transformation, was not in itself a crime.

The court also heard that investigators had identified more than 103 people as persons of interest through WhatsApp groups linked to the unrest. Zuma-Sambudla was not on that list. However, Govender said her social media influence elevated concerns.

“It became evident through our investigative methodology that this Twitter account that was registered under the name of the accused before court was indeed being used for the purposes of conveying or inciting followers,” he said.

The trial continues on Tuesday, 11 November. DM