‘The most ridiculous thing’: Judgement reserved in Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla matter as Mpofu pokes holes in state’s case

Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla at Durban High Court on November 10, 2025 in Durban, South Africa. Picture: Gallo Images/Darren Stewart

The KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Durban has reserved its judgement on Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s application to dismiss the terrorism case against her.

Zuma-Sambudla, the daughter of former president Jacob Zuma, is facing charges of incitement to commit terrorism and incitement to commit violence in connection with the deadly July 2021 unrest that swept through KZN and Gauteng.

The violence, characterised by widespread looting and destruction of property, erupted after her father’s imprisonment for defying a Constitutional Court order.

The state alleges that Zuma-Sambudla’s social media posts encouraged people to participate in the violence and contributed to its escalation.

Zuma-Sambudla’s section 174 application was heard by Judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa on Thursday.

The application is made under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which essentially allows an accused to request that a trial be dismissed before the defence presents its case.

Representing the former uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK party) MP, advocate Dali Mpofu argued that the state had not proved unlawfulness and that the allegations were “ridiculous”.

He said the state could not prove there was an inciter and an “incitee” – a person who was incited.

“There must still be an incitee. That’s the point, really. You cannot have incitement; you must have an inciter and an incitee,” Mpofu argued.

“That’s the crux of this case. And unless you can demonstrate that there’s an incitee, then your case must fall by the wayside – and they have failed to do so.”

Mpofu told the court that the state, as the onus-bearing party, had not established the element of unlawfulness.

He further argued that the state had a vendetta against Zuma-Sambudla and said if the wording of her posts incited violence as alleged, then the same law should apply to those who shared the post.

“The evidence was that so many people retweeted the information; the only difference is that their surname is not Zuma. So why would just, out of all this information, one person be targeted?” Mpofu questioned.

“So, are we now going to say all of those people, not the actual looters, but the people who might express a view one way or another, exercising their freedoms, are themselves inciting the violence?

“It’s the most ridiculous thing.”

Mpofu argued that it would mean every time a protest erupts in the country and people debate it on social media, they would be inciting violence.

The state is opposing Zuma-Sambudla’s application.

Both parties will have to wait until Friday, 6 November, when the matter returns to court for judgment.

Get the latest news and updates on Whatsapp