Zuma-Sambudla ‘masterful’ at using social media to rally support for her father, court told

Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla was “masterful” in her use of social media, pushing a narrative that sought to drum up sympathy and loyalty for her father, former president Jacob Zuma, in the lead-up to the deadly July 2021 riots in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng.

This was the testimony of police cybercrime expert Brigadier Janine Kollette Steynberg in the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court in Durban on Monday, 17 November.

“In my opinion, the accused was masterful in using social media and using every single narrative to her availability to gather support for the president. She spoke about and called for the pride of a specific group of people…

“She shared what are essentially false videos that had nothing to do with the situation at hand,” said Steynberg, who was responding to questions posed by the prosecutor, advocate Yuri Gangai.

Zuma-Sambudla (43) is accused of incitement to commit terrorism under the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act.

She pleaded not guilty at the start of the trial last week.

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

Read more: Witness is grilled by Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s lawyer in incitement trial

Personal to political

The State alleges that Zuma-Sambudla 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.

Her father served two months of his 15-month sentence for contempt of court before being released on medical parole and then granted remission.

Gangai said Zuma-Sambudla’s tweets were viewed and retweeted multiple times, potentially reaching more than 100,000 of her followers and their networks.

Steynberg, who monitored Zuma-Sambudla’s Twitter account, agreed with this, adding that before Zuma’s imprisonment, the account contained no political statements, only personal content and pictures.

In one instance, she commented on the EFF leader, Julius Malema’s tweet asking to meet Zuma over tea at his Nkandla homestead. The meeting of the two leaders took place and made headlines.

Steynberg told the court that, in the period between the Nkandla tea party and Zuma’s sentencing, Zuma-Sambudla’s posts became politically charged.

“The tweets became more urgent after the former president was found in contempt of court,” she said.

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

She referred to a tweet on 30 June in which Zuma-Sambudla published a protest video and later used the caption “amandla” alongside an unrelated video of soldiers.

Steynberg told the court that although she was not a linguist, this suggested “a popular rallying cry meaning ‘power’ that was used during the liberation struggle”.

While some posts were later deleted, Steynberg told the court she had taken screenshots of several tweets and the comments they generated. Some read:

“Zulus will not let one of their own go to jail.”

“We support him with our lives.”

“The people’s president. Amandla.”

She acknowledged that the responses included both positive and negative reactions, but said the overall message was clear: if Zuma was imprisoned, it could spark widespread unrest. “All the tweets together contributed to a narrative that ultimately led to comments which were clearly incitement,” said Steynberg.

Defence questions ‘real evidence’

During cross-examination, Dali Mpofu SC argued that an earlier witness, an investigator, had found no link between the tweets and the actions of looters.

Steynberg, however, maintained that her investigation showed otherwise.

“If you look at all the tweets together, how the urgency increased, and how social media was used to support President Zuma, you see that some tweets did call for violence. And violence did break out. The entire group of tweets contributed to the violence,” she said.

She maintained that the posts of instigators, including Zuma-Sambudla, on social media were linked to the violence.

“It coerced people to take specific actions in committing violence. Is it only the accused before the court? No. But did she contribute? Yes, through what she posted on social media.”

Mpofu also questioned the reliability of Steynberg’s “real evidence”, challenging whether she knew where the videos originated, when and where they were recorded, or who created the voice-overs.

In response, Steynberg clarified that the videos themselves were not the evidence; the tweets were.

“The video in its singularity is not the evidence. The evidence I am bringing to court is the tweet by the accused. She added a video to strengthen her message… The fact is, she used them in a tweet to make a specific point and call for support. That tweet is my evidence, not the videos or pictures,” she said.

The trial continues. DM