Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s tweets before and during the July 2021 riots were “consistent with citizen journalism and commentary”, an expert would testify at her trial in which she is facing charges of inciting violence and terrorism.
This was submitted by her advocate Dali Mpofu during cross-examination of social media law expert Emma Sadleir.
Sadleir was called by the state and testified that after analysing the 28 posts Zuma-Sambudla made on (then) Twitter over 36 hours at the height of the unrest, they were “encouragement, jubilation, and celebratory”.
Zuma-Sambudla pleaded not guilty to the charges when the trial began before Durban high court judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa last week.
On Thursday, Mpofu said the expert would say that Zuma-Sambudla had not given any “operational direction”, and that without evidence that she had instructed people to commit crime, the prosecution lacked evidential support.
Sadleir conceded that there was nothing wrong with filming a protest or tweeting about it.
But, she said, the media (photographs and videos), attached, and the words, ‘we see you’ she had used could not be termed citizen journalism.
Mpofu then challenged her construction of what his client meant by “we see you”.
“So there is nothing wrong with reporting what is going on. But when you exercise that right, you cannot say ‘we see you’. So this whole case is about that and her use of Amandla and fist pumps,” he said.
He suggested that if Sadleir were wrong, and if the phrase “we see you” was just a form of greeting, like Sawubona, the case was absurd and ridiculous and “we can all go home”.
Sadleir replied that she did not accept that it was just a greeting, but even if it was, then other aspects of the tweets would need to be considered by the court.
As you can imagine, there are millions of people every day trying to get content removed from these platforms. What happens is you report the content, it goes to a person in a back room in a third world country, who is given 10 seconds to decide if it should be removed or not.
— Emma Sadleir, social media law expert
Earlier in cross-examination, Mpofu made much of the fact that Sadleir had not compiled a proper expert witness report — and that she could not be considered an expert in any event, because judges were the legal experts in courts.
“To the extent that you are saying you are an expert, I put it to you, you are an expert in digital law. Nobody is allowed to give a court of law expertise in law. So you are of no use to this court,” he said, saying if he was right, her entire memorandum should be thrown in the rubbish bin.
Sadleir disagreed: “Being a specialist in digital law is not just about law. It’s about how these platforms work, the law around them, understanding issues around publication and the scale and reach of publication, and how these sometimes complicated laws apply to these very new platforms.”
His expert, Mpofu said, would also say there was no “causal evidence” between the tweets and the outbreak of public violence.
Sadleir said she believed the tweets, in their totality over that 36-hour period, were a contributing factor, more so because Zuma-Sumbudla, as daughter of former president Jacob Zuma, was “political royalty” and an “influencer”.
Mpofu said the expert would also testify that the fact that Twitter (now X) had not taken down the content meant that it was not harmful or inciting violence.
Sadleir said this was irrelevant.
“This is an area in which I have an extraordinary amount of expertise. In 13 years, not a day goes by when I have not dealt with these moderation policies.
“As you can imagine, there are millions of people every day trying to get content removed from these platforms. What happens is you report the content, it goes to a person in a back room in a third world country, who is given 10 seconds to decide if it should be removed or not.
“From my experience, of reporting countless cases — a beheading video, graphic child sexual abuse material and, just last week, a video of a man lying in bed being shot and murdered — they are all declared to be not in violation.”
Sadleir conceded that her lack of knowledge about a cultural context was a valid criticism after it was pointed out to her by Mpofu that all three witnesses who had testified before her had “candidly admitted” to not having this knowledge.
While the state alleges in the indictment that the unrest was sparked through the incarceration of Zuma (after the Constitutional Court found him guilty of contempt for refusing to appear before the Zondo Commission on State Capture), Mpofu pointed out that the South African Human Rights Commission, in a report in January 2024, had found this not to be the case.
He put to Sadleir: “You completely ignored this finding”.
She responded that she stood by the findings in her memorandum.
She described the expert’s report as not being the Rolls-Royce of expert witness statements — to which Mpofu retorted: “Well, let’s safely say it’s a Mazda, but if it’s a car, yours is a go-kart or bicycle.”
Mpofu said he would demonstrate that none of the posts, or only an insignificant number of them, depicted public violence or incitement. He then took her through all the tweets individually, asking if they did or did not. In some she conceded. In others, she said they did.
But she previously repeatedly insisted that the tweets must be looked at in their entirety, the words, the media attached and the emojis used.
Sadleir will be re-examined by state advocate Yuri Gangai when the trial resumes next year from April 13-24.
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.