Proceedings in the terrorism trial of Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla resumed at the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) High Court in Durban on Monday, 13 April 2026, with continued scrutiny of her social media activity during the July 2021 unrest.
Zuma-Sambudla, a former uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party MP, is facing charges of incitement to commit terrorism and incitement to commit violence.
The charges stem from the July 2021 unrest that resulted in more than 300 deaths and billions of rand in damages across KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng.
The state alleges that she used her X (formerly Twitter) account to encourage acts of violence and looting in the aftermath of her father and former president Jacob Zuma’s imprisonment for defying a Constitutional Court (ConCourt) order.
She has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s terrorism trial resumes
Central to Monday’s proceedings was the interpretation of the phrase “we see you”, which Zuma-Sambudla frequently used online.
Her legal representative, Dali Mpofu, argued that the phrase is a direct English translation of a common isiZulu greeting.
He challenged social media law expert Emma Sadleir on whether she disputed the assertion.
Sadleir acknowledged the literal translation but insisted that meaning shifts significantly in digital contexts, particularly on social media platforms.
“I have absolutely no dispute that the literal translation into IsiZulu of ‘we see you’ is ‘sawubona‘, but despite a lot of the content which has been canvassed in this court from the social media account of the accused, [it] has adopted a totally different meaning in social media culture.
“Not just in the South African context, but internationally,” the expert told the court.
She also clarified her stance on the phrase’s implications.
“I have never said ‘we see you’ has a connotation of violence,” Sadleir remarked.
However, Sadleir highlighted that while the phrase could express recognition, appreciation, admiration, and gratitude, it could also be interpreted differently depending on context – particularly in Zuma-Sambudla’s posts showing unrest.
“In some of the tweets depicting violence, that recognition, appreciation, and gratitude is of violence. But sometimes, it’s of other things.”
Dispute over expert evidence
The format of Sadleir’s findings also became a point of contention in court.
Mpofu had previously argued that her report, presented as a memorandum, should be “thrown in the dustbin”, stating that expert testimony must be supported by a formal report.
Under re-examination by state prosecutor Alex Moolman, Sadleir defended both the structure and substance of her submission to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), also known as the Hawks.
“The document prepared and styled as a memorandum is indeed independent, unbiased and my expert opinion.
“Had I been given the opportunity to turn this memorandum into an expert witness document prepared solely for the purposes of this courtroom, I would have literally copied and pasted from it and inserted a conclusion summarising the findings I made throughout the report,” she said.
Sadleir further outlined that her memorandum included a detailed methodology and drew on her professional expertise in social media law.
She also dismissed any suggestion that her conclusions were influenced by Hawks investigators.
“All evidence contained in my report was obtained by me from publicly available sources.”
The trial will continue on Tuesday, 14 April.
