Individually, none of the 15 tweets posted by Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla could be construed as inciting violence during the July 2021 riots, the woman who lodged the complaint against her with the Hawks conceded on Wednesday.
However, lawyer Sarah-Jane Trent, who worked for Paul O’Sullivan’s Forensics For Justice at the time, said cumulatively, given the events unfolding at the time, and the influence of Zuma-Sambudla, she believed the tweets could be viewed as her instigating the violence that erupted after the incarceration of her father, former president Jacob Zuma.
The MK Party MP is on trial before Durban high court judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa on charges of terrorism and inciting violence.
She has pleaded not guilty, claiming her prosecution is politically motivated and the state’s case against her weak.
On Tuesday, state advocate Yuri Gangai took Trent through a series of 15 posts Zuma-Sambudla had posted on her (then) Twitter account, which included stills and videos, often with the words “we see you”.
Many were posted on July 9 — one of the worst days in the week-long riots that left 350 people dead in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng and caused mass destruction.
During cross examination, Mpofu went through the 15 “offending tweets”, eliciting from Trent that none showed violence, or incitement to violence individually.
He referred to one, depicting what appeared to be a blockade in Pietermaritzburg, as being a “road block”.
Regarding another, of unknown individuals firing a machine gun and two guns, he said, there was no proof that this was unlawful “or that the firing of these guns” was an offence.
The circumstances of another video, showing burning vehicles at Mooi Plaza, was not clear and it could have been a “a burst petrol tank”, Mpofu suggested.
He said if not one of the posts could be described as incitement then cumulatively they could not be considered “rotten potatoes”.
Trent disagreed with this.
“I will argue that you are evading the question. It is self-evident that if there are no rotten potatoes in the bag, the bag is intact,” he said.
He also extracted from Trent that she had laid the complaint with the Hawks on behalf of Forensics for Justice.
Earlier this week, Mpofu had stated that its founder, Paul O’Sullivan, was a known opponent of Jacob Zuma and an ally of President Cyril Ramaphosa.
He also asked why Trent had mentioned Zuma-Sambudla’s alleged ties to the Gupta family in her initial complaint.
“Do you agree that if it is established, either here or in another court, that [the prosecution] was politically motivated, it cannot be salvaged, it would be the fruits of a poisoned tree,” he asked Trent.
She said she did not agree.
“A criminal offence is a criminal offence. The motive does not take away that fact,” she said.
Mpofu said he would argue that the prosecution was based on malice and political motivation.
“I will argue the only reason that you became this busy body is because of her and her father, and it was politically motivated, you were targeting her because of who she is and, more tragically, because of who her father is,” he said.
He said he would also argue that Trent was a poor witness, who evaded questions “that came close to the bone” and her statements to the police “are not worth the paper they are written on because, when we interrogate them, they come to zero”.
The trial will resume next week.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.