Judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa of the Durban High Court has refused Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s application for discharge, ruling that she must answer the charges against her and setting the matter on a course toward legal arguments in 2027.
The Section 174 application, brought under the Criminal Procedure Act, was dismissed. Mathenjwa ordered that the evidence be evaluated as a whole only at the end of the trial. The case, which arises from the July 2021 unrest, will therefore proceed to its next procedural stage rather than end before the defence has been heard.
The application was lodged after the State closed its case. Zuma-Sambudla, a daughter of former president Jacob Zuma, argued through her counsel, advocate Dali Mpofu SC, that she should be discharged of charges of incitement to commit public violence and terrorism. The State opposed the move, maintaining it had presented a prima facie case.
In explaining his reasoning, Mathenjwa set out the legal standard governing this stage of a criminal trial. At the Section 174 phase, he noted, a court is not required to make a final determination on the credibility of witnesses or on whether the State has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledged the threshold that would justify discharge: an accused may be released at the close of the State’s case if the evidence is so poor that no reasonable person could accept it.
That threshold, in the judge’s assessment, was not met. “In the interest of justice, the court has to consider the evidence holistically at the end of the trial,” he said. “For these reasons, the application to discharge the accused at the closure of the State case must fail. The application in terms of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act is refused,” he ordered.
The judgment turns on the court’s view that a final verdict can only be reached once both sides have been heard. “In the circumstances of this case, it will be only at the end of the trial that the court would be able to determine whether the accused is guilty or not,” Mathenjwa said. Only then, he explained, would the court be positioned to make a final assessment of witness credibility, weigh the probative value of the evidence, and determine whether the State had discharged its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The State’s case rests on allegations that Zuma-Sambudla used the social media platform X to incite violence during the July 2021 unrest, which followed the arrest of her father. Prosecutors allege she shared posts, videos and pictures that encouraged violence. In support of its case, the State called seven witnesses, some of whom were involved in investigating the alleged offences.
Meanwhile, the procedural picture shifted quickly. After the ruling was delivered, the matter was stood down so dates for its continuation could be arranged. When proceedings resumed, Mpofu told the court the defence would not be calling any witnesses and was closing its case. “This is the stage at which the case for the defence commences. My instructions are to inform the court that the accused person closes her case, meaning next it’s legal arguments,” he said. The matter was postponed to May 17, 2027, for legal arguments.
Outside court, the National Prosecuting Authority framed the ruling as a validation of its decision to pursue the charges. NPA spokesperson Natasha Ramkisson-Kara said the ruling meant the charges against Zuma-Sambudla were valid.
The decision leaves the case on a long procedural runway, with legal arguments not scheduled until 2027, and places the final assessment of the State’s evidence squarely before the trial court rather than allowing it to be resolved at an interim stage.