Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla was “masterful” in her use of social media to “propagate tribalism” and incite violence before and during the 2021 July unrest.
This was the evidence of police cyber crime expert Brig Janine Steynberg.
Steynberg was testifying on Monday in the Durban high court trial in which the MK MP and daughter of former president Jacob Zuma is facing charges of terrorism and inciting violence through a series of social media messages she posted during the uprising, which left 350 people dead in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng and caused billions of rands of destruction.
Zuma-Sambudla has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Steynberg went through the tweets individually, noting that while they did not all directly call for violence, collectively she had created a “narrative”, aimed at garnering support for her father who was imprisoned for contempt of court.
The police officer said Zuma-Sambudla had “called on the pride of a specific group of people”, by including a video of her father with a caption “just a Zulu boy” and using a photograph of actor Henry Cele, who played the lead in the film Shaka Zulu, speaking of loyalty and pride.
She had then “masterfully” used media clips, information and sometimes false information through old video clips, even clips from overseas, in what became an “urgent attempt to gather support”.
There were two instances where she had actually called for violence, including one where she posted: “Take the day off from being the bigger person, and choose violence. You deserve it.”
Steynberg also focused on the comments Zuma-Sambudla’s followers had posted on her account, some negative ― accusing her of incitement ― and some positive.
But her advocate Dali Mpofu said if the state wanted to introduce this evidence, it must call those people to give evidence.
“Are you going to call these people? To the extent that the state wants the court to take into account the actual content of what was said, that is hearsay,” he submitted.
“The value of this content is zero,” he said.
The prosecution team leader advocate Yuri Gangai said it was impossible for the state to call each and every person who commented to give evidence.
“At the end of the day, the court has to determine, objectively, how the messages were perceived.”
Mpofu said he would leave the issue for argument.
Steynberg said Zuma-Sambudla had about 123,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter). Given the size of her following and her status in society, this meant she was a “social media influencer”.
Steynberg testified that during her investigation, she had eliminated certain fake social media accounts and had zoomed in on one, which she said contained “personal and intimate” photographs of Zuma-Sambudla and her father.
Up until her father was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to jail at the end of June 2021, her posts had been “personal” but that changed.
“They were becoming more and more urgent; she was gathering support for her father.”
After the Constitutional Court ruling, she had posted that the time to fight with mobile phones was over.
“That was the first time I got concerned. I understood it as a request to say, perhaps, let’s stop doing it on social media. Which might have led to some of the violence,” Steynberg said.
Another concern was when she had posted a video of a protest march with the word “Amandla (power)”.
In response, a follower had commented with a video, which was played to the court. It showed heavily armed men with automatic rifles, faces partly covered, driving a vehicle.
Steynberg described Twitter as being a public conversation and posts were open to all, not just followers.
“And it is recorded and cannot be misquoted,” she said.
Under cross-examination, she continued to insist that while individual posts might not be incitement, in totality and given the timing, they were.
“If you look at the timeline of the tweets, and the fact that there were at least two that called for violence, and that violence did indeed break out, there was a clear understanding from commentators that they understood the messages as a call for violence,” she said.
“So she called for violence,” Mpofu asked.
“Yes, she did,” Steynberg replied.
Regarding the admissibility of the evidence of the commentators, she said it was “real evidence”, as she was an eyewitness to conversations taking place in a public arena.
Regarding the contentious tweet regarding “choose violence”, Mpofu asked Steynberg who his client was speaking to.
She said, potentially 23,000 followers.
“But who was she telling to be the bigger person and take the day off?” he asked.
“I don’t know,” she responded.
“Yes, it could be anyone,” Mpofu said.
The trial, presided over by judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa, will continue for the rest of the week.
Steynberg is still under cross-examination.
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.