State must prove incitement link orbs around Zuma-Sambudla’s social media posts during riots; Mpofu

The legal battle surrounding Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, the former spokesperson for the South African Police Service, continued this week as Advocate Dali Mpofu pressed the state to demonstrate a direct link between her social media activity and the widespread unrest that occurred during the July 2021 riots.

The case, currently unfolding in the Durban High Court, centers on accusations of incitement to terrorism and public violence.

The core of Mpofu’s argument, presented to the court on Thursday, October 29th, rested on the fundamental requirement of establishing criminal liability.

He asserted that without concrete evidence demonstrating a specific individual or group directly influenced by Zuma-Sambudla’s posts acted unlawfully, the state’s case lacks a solid foundation.

As it stands, the prosecution’s theory hinges on the claim that her social media activity fueled the unrest, but the defense is challenging the necessity of proving a causal connection.

Mpofu repeatedly emphasized the need for an “incitee”—someone who actually committed a crime as a result of the alleged incitement.

He argued that simply pointing to social media posts as a source of unrest was insufficient. “The point I’m making, my lord, is that whether it was through social media or a megaphone or whatever, it doesn’t matter,” he stated. “There must still be an ‘incitee’.” This legal principle, central to criminal law, dictates that incitement itself is not a crime; rather, it’s the subsequent actions of someone influenced by the incitement that constitutes the offense.

The trial has highlighted a significant challenge for the state: proving that Zuma-Sambudla’s posts directly triggered the violent actions observed during the riots.

While the state has presented evidence of widespread unrest and social media activity surrounding the events, the defense contends that this evidence alone is not enough to establish a legally binding connection.

It appears the prosecution’s case is built primarily on the assertion that social media served as a platform for incitement, rather than directly causing the acts of violence.

Legal experts suggest that this focus on establishing an “incitee” represents a crucial test for the state’s case.

If the court determines that the state has failed to demonstrate this critical link, it could significantly weaken the prosecution’s argument and potentially lead to the dismissal of the charges.

The coming weeks of the trial will undoubtedly be dominated by this central legal question.

professorX feedback-opera-news-app@opera.com