Judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa of the Durban High Court on Friday dismissed Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s application for discharge at the close of the State’s case, ruling that she must continue answering charges of incitement to commit terrorism, public violence and violence under the Regulation of Gatherings Act. The matter is set down for trial continuation on 17 May 2027.
The ruling turned on the legal test for a Section 174 discharge. Mathenjwa explained that the question is whether there is evidence on which a reasonable court might convict if the accused chose not to testify. At this stage, he stressed, the court makes no final determinations about witness credibility and does not decide whether the State has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additional reference context is available at https://www.news24.com/southafrica/crime-and-courts/duduzile-zuma-sambudla-loses-bid-to-have-incitement-charges-withdrawn-20261106-0525.
The judge pointed to the material before him: the social media posts themselves, Zuma-Sambudla’s admissions that she had published them, comments left by her followers, and testimony from witnesses involved in the investigation. The State and the defence, he noted, held diametrically opposed views on the meaning of the posts and accompanying statements, as well as on the lawfulness of the conduct and the intention of the accused. Given that, he said, it was in the interests of justice for the court to conduct a holistic evaluation of the evidence at the end of the trial. Only then would the court determine witness credibility in a final sense, assess the cumulative weight of the evidence, and decide whether it met the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The charges stem from posts published on Zuma-Sambudla’s public X account before and during the July 2021 unrest in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng. That unrest erupted after her father, former president Jacob Zuma, was arrested for contempt of court for failing to comply with an order to appear before the State Capture Commission. In proceedings, the State presented posts, photographs, audio and video clips, some depicting burning infrastructure, people discharging firearms, barricaded roads and armed groups in traditional attire. The court also heard evidence about comments from some of her followers, some warning her that her posts amounted to incitement, others expressing support. Seven witnesses testified for the State, including investigators and translators who assisted with interpreting statements. Under cross-examination, some witnesses conceded that certain posts, viewed individually, did not amount to incitement to commit terrorism or violence.
Her defence team, led by advocate Dali Mpofu, SC, argued that the State had failed to establish a prima facie case and that she should be discharged without presenting her defence. The State opposed, contending it had led sufficient evidence for the matter to proceed.
Meanwhile, the ruling itself does not amount to a finding of guilt. Zuma-Sambudla, who remains expelled from her father’s MK Party, said after the judgment: “I’m not surprised, but we will be back in May and we’ll take it from there. It doesn’t change; I’m still innocent.” Her father also reacted to the judgment. The case now returns to the Durban High Court in May 2027, where the evidentiary questions the judge deferred will finally be resolved.