In KwaZulu-Natal, the scars of July 2021 are still carried by the families who lost relatives, the shopkeepers who watched their businesses burn and the residents who queued for food when supply chains collapsed. More than 300 people died during that wave of protests, looting and violence. Damage to businesses, warehouses, shopping centres and public infrastructure was extensive. It is against that human backdrop that Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla has returned to the Durban High Court.
Zuma-Sambudla, the daughter of former president Jacob Zuma, faces three charges: one count of incitement to commit terrorism and two counts of incitement to commit public violence. The State alleges that posts published on her social media accounts during the unrest contributed to its escalation by encouraging people to take part in the violence. She has pleaded not guilty and disputes any suggestion that her online activity encouraged criminal acts.
The unrest erupted after Jacob Zuma began serving a 15-month prison sentence for contempt of court, having refused to comply with a Constitutional Court order to appear before the State Capture Commission. What followed in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng was a period of widespread destruction that touched ordinary communities particularly hard, especially in KwaZulu-Natal itself.
Prosecutors have pointed to messages, images and videos shared on her former Twitter account, now known as X, during the days when parts of the country were in turmoil. Among the material examined by investigators were posts shared alongside footage of events unfolding in real time. The prosecution argues that these communications must be read within the wider context of the violence and the potential influence of her online following.
That interpretation is precisely what the defence contests. Zuma-Sambudla’s legal team has disputed the claim that her online activity directly encouraged criminal acts, which places the meaning and context of the messages at the centre of the proceedings. The court must now weigh whether the evidence shows that her communications crossed the threshold from political expression into unlawful encouragement of violence, as the State contends, or whether that line was never crossed, as she maintains.
For the communities that lived through those days, the stakes of that question are familiar ones. The unrest disrupted supply chains and left affected areas dealing with destroyed shops, damaged infrastructure and the after-effects of fear and loss. It remains one of the most destructive periods of unrest in South Africa’s recent history.
Meanwhile, the trial raises broader questions about the relationship between social media communication and criminal responsibility. Online platforms now allow public figures to speak directly to large audiences, and the proceedings highlight the legal difficulty of establishing whether any particular post amounts to incitement. How the court resolves that question could shape how online speech is assessed under criminal law in future cases.
The defence continues to contest the allegations, while prosecutors press the argument that the posts must be understood in light of the violence that surrounded them. The proceedings are ongoing, with the court considering the evidence presented by both sides.
As the hearings continue, the position of the accused remains unchanged in law: Zuma-Sambudla is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and the charges against her have not been established as fact. What the case will ultimately determine is whether words posted online, in the midst of a national crisis that cost hundreds of lives and devastated communities, can be held legally responsible for the violence that followed. That answer matters both to the woman in the dock and to the families and neighbourhoods still carrying the weight of what happened in July 2021.