Advocate Dali Mpofu, who is representing Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla in her July 2021 “incitement” trial, pulled out the “daddy card” on Tuesday.
“She just wanted her daddy home,” he suggested to Hawks cybercrime expert Brig Janine Steynberg.
And this, Mpofu said, made her different from the dozens of others accused of instigating the violence that caused mass destruction and left 350 people dead in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng following the incarceration of her father, former president Jacob Zuma.
Zuma-Sambudla, 43, is charged with terrorism and inciting violence through a series of what is alleged to be inflammatory social media posts on X (then Twitter). She pleaded not guilty to the charges when her trial began last week before Durban high court judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa.
Steynberg, who probed the posts to her estimated 123,000 followers, had testified that while individually they did not amount to inciting violence, collectively they did. At least twice, she had directly called for violence, once posting: “Take the day off from being the bigger person and choose violence. You deserve it.”
At the tail end of his cross-examination, Mpofu attempted to appeal to Steynberg, “person to person”.
“You say there was a close bond between father and daughter. You are a parent yourself … your daughter would not like it if you went to prison … This particular accused is in a different category to the other so-called instigators. She wanted her daddy home. Do you understand that as a parent?”
Steynberg said while she understood that Zuma-Sambudla had a “bigger emotional reason” than the others, her narrative had been the same. Pressed on the issue of whether this was her sole intention, Steynberg said it was “possible” although the evidence showed the contrary and her later posts, in which she called for and supported violence, showed a different intent.
Mpofu said the defence would call its own expert who, among other issues, would criticise Steynberg for ignoring the “free speech threshold”, which required that there be a threat of imminent violence.
“He says there was no evidence of a threat of imminent violence,” Mpofu said.
It’s like watching repeated Coke advertisements. Afterwards, some people will want to have one. Over that time there was nothing else on her feed, it was all Free Jacob Zuma, support Jacob Zuma, choose violence. Eventually some people will sit there and say I feel like a Coke now.
— Brig Janine Steynberg, Hawks cybercrime expert
Steynberg said this was not true.
“Anybody who followed the media knew that there was a distinct possibility that something could go wrong. That the day the former president was arrested, there would be big trouble ― war. That was the narrative at the time. And when someone tweets ‘choose violence’, that is overstepping the bounds of free speech,” she said.
Under re-examination by state advocate Yuri Gangai, Steynberg agreed with him that “this case is not about wanting her daddy home, but the method she used”.
She then explained her earlier evidence that Zuma-Sambudla had “masterfully” used social media through subliminal messaging by using words “we see you” and attaching videos and pictures.
“You have to look at the bigger picture,” she said. “It’s like watching repeated Coke advertisements. Afterwards, some people will want to have one. Over that time there was nothing else on her feed, it was all Free Jacob Zuma, support Jacob Zuma, choose violence. Eventually some people will sit there and say I feel like a Coke now.”
On suggestions by Mpofu that some of the followers who commented on the posts, might not have been real people “but robots”, she said this was unlikely, given the number of posts, likes and retweets.
“Bots existed in July 2021. But they were not as sophisticated as they are today,” Steynberg said.
Later in the day social media law expert Emma Sadleir took the stand, saying her analysis of the tweets by Zuma-Sambudla found “encouragement, jubilation and celebration of the unrest that had South Africa on its knees over that period”.
She noted that in some instances, they had been screenshot and shared WhatsApp groups, such as one called “Free Zuma Co-ordinators”.
“What was happening on those groups was real orchestration of actual unrest … this is where we are meeting, at what time and this is how you make a homemade bomb.
“These groups were at maximum capacity. They had a lot of people and content. There was interplay between what was shared by the accused and what was shared on these groups,” Sadleir said.
She will continue with her evidence on Wednesday.
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.