Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla tweeted a video depicting an unknown person shooting six times at a picture of President Cyril Ramaphosa on an election poster ― but later deleted it.
This was the evidence of social media legal expert Emma Sadleir in the ongoing trial in the Durban high court in which the MK Party MP and daughter of former president Jacob Zuma is facing charges of incitement to commit violence and terrorism through a series of tweets she posted before and after the incarceration of her father.
Many of the tweets, some 28, were posted on July 9 2021 when South Africa, particularly KwaZulu-Natal, was devastated by mass looting and destruction that caused billions of rands’ worth of damage and left 350 people dead.
Sadleir said while she was an expert on social media law, she was not giving evidence as an “expert” but as someone who had been approached by the Hawks to compile a memorandum on Zuma-Sambudla’s social media accounts over that time and to advise if there should be any consequences in law.
She and other witnesses have already gone through all the posts including the images ― photographs and videos ― shared with them.
But Sadleir flagged one “deleted post”.
“I came across multiple news reports referring to a tweet which had been ostensibly published at 9.23am on July 9. The tweet was without words but included a video of somebody shooting at the poster. A voice in the background can be heard saying ‘haibo’, ‘eish’ and ‘yeyeye’,” she said.
She said the same video had been circulated on WhatsApp groups, a Free Zuma group and the eThekwini shutdown group, which were being used by instigators to co-ordinate the uprising.
She said before the post was deleted from Zuma-Sambudla’s account it had received about 16,900 views.
While she initially claimed that the video showed that the shooter fired directly at the face in Ramaphosa’s image, in cross-examination, she conceded this was not the case and, rather, the shots had been fired generally at the election poster.
Sadleir said in preparation for testifying in court, she had gone onto Zuma-Sambudla’s X (formerly Twitter account) again and had noticed that she had missed one, posted on July 9, “the most violent day in democratic history”.
She had written, in capital letters, “Gauteng! Mpumulanga! Free State! Are you there?” This was followed in isiZulu by “nisaphila? (’are you still alive and well?')”.
This is not a small game. There is a reason the defence is entitled to the docket many months before the case starts. It’s the right of the accused to know what case she has to meet. It’s not right to ambush her.
— Dali Mpofu, Zuma-Sambudla’s advocate
“My reading of this was she was saying we have caused this destruction. Where are the other provinces, are you awake, are you coming to the party?” Sadleir said.
Zuma-Sambudla’s advocate Dali Mpofu claimed to have been ambushed by this evidence. He said he would argue its admissibility at a later date.
“This is not a small game. There is a reason the defence is entitled to the docket many months before the case starts. It’s the right of the accused to know what case she has to meet. It’s not right to ambush her. She is anxious for all of this to be finalised,” he said.
In conclusion, Sadleir said: “Looking at the content alongside what was happening during that 36-hour period, my very clear understanding was that the tweets were a call for action, inciting others to act in a manner demonstrated, to urge and stir up unrest, to recognise in a celebratory way the unrest and violence and disruption, that had the country on its knees.“
“It’s my firm, honestly held belief, that this social media content instigated, in collaboration with other content available, that unrest.”
During cross-examination, Mpofu said most of Sadleir’s evidence was repetition and the theme of his questioning would be “what are you doing here?”.
He said she was not testifying as an expert but only giving her opinion. Opinion evidence was generally inadmissible.
Beyond that, he said, nobody could testify as a “legal expert” because the court was expected to be that expert.
“I will argue that what you have presented to the court is no different from the kind of opinion that I do on a daily basis as counsel, when the client says here are the facts, what should we do? And that’s all it is. An opinion from a legal adviser. And such, should never see the door of the court.”
Turning to the issue of Zuma-Sambudla’s frequent use of the words “I see you” or “we see you” on her posts, Mpofu said this was nothing more than saying hello and it was the literal translation of the isiZulu greeting word, sawubona.
Sadleir asked why she had not, then, used the isiZulu word.
“Looking at the context of the tweets in their entirety, my view is, she uses the phrase interchangeably with ‘we salute you’.
“They created an obvious purpose. Appreciation, support and gratitude.”
She, however, conceded that in some of the tweets, viewed individually, there was no violence or “incitement to terrorism”.
Regarding the “deleted tweet”, Mpofu said it depicted an ANC election poster ― “a piece of cardboard”.
“In your evidence, you said her tweets showed a hatred of Ramaphosa,” he said. “But do they show anything more than political opposition? Is it a sin to disagree with him? Is it hatred?”
Sadleir said if Mpofu preferred the words “dislike or opposition”, she had no problem with that.
Cross-examination will continue on Thursday.
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.