No proof Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla funded July 2021 unrest, court hears

There was no link established between Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla and the financing of groups involved in the July 2021 unrest, the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) High Court in Durban has heard.

The former MK party MP appeared in court on Monday, 26 October 2026, as proceedings resumed in her high-profile trial.

She is facing charges of incitement to commit terrorism and incitement to commit violence in connection to 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 and former president Jacob Zuma’s imprisonment for defying a Constitutional Court (ConCourt) 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 trial over July 2021 unrest resumes

Colonel Bheki Nazo, the unit commander of the South African Police Service (Saps) KZN’s serious organised crime unit, told the court on Monday that investigators had examined Zuma-Sambudla’s financial records and cellphone data as part of their investigation.

Nazo, who has 36 years of experience, testified that he was assigned the case after Sarah-Jane Trent, who worked for forensic examiner Paul O’Sullivan, lodged a complaint.

Thereafter, he approached network service providers for Zuma-Sambudla’s cellphone records and sought financial documents from her bank to determine whether she had channelled money to groups involved in the unrest.

“[The purpose was to check] if there was any monies that were taken out of that account, financing the other groups that were participating in the unrest at the time,” the police officer said.

However, the investigation did not produce evidence establishing the suspected financial links or communication.

“We could not prove the communication between the accused person and those other groups,” Nazo added.

‘We see you’ comes under scrutiny

Earlier in the day, the court heard testimony from Ellie Khumalo-Simelane, a retired police officer who served in the Saps for 22 years.

Khumalo-Simelane retired with the rank of colonel after working as a language practitioner and commander of language management at the police service’s national head office in Pretoria.

She holds a PhD and specialised in English and isiZulu during her academic studies.

Her professional responsibilities included translating videos, interpreting content from isiZulu into English and assisting with disciplinary proceedings involving police officers.

The former colonel’s testimony focused on the phrase “we see you“, which Zuma-Sambudla repeatedly used in social media posts during the unrest.

A social media expert who previously testified in the case had interpreted the phrase as an indication that Zuma-Sambudla was encouraging the actions taking place.

However, defence lawyer Dali Mpofu argued that the expression was a direct English translation of the common isiZulu greeting “sawubona“.

Khumalo-Simelane gave “siyagubona” or “siyanibona” as translations of “we see you”.

“There is a difference if it reads or I say ‘ngiyakubona‘ because this would be referring to a single person,” the former police officer told the court.

Although its meaning could vary depending on the surrounding context, she rejected the defence’s suggestion that the expression was being used as a greeting in Zuma-Sambudla’s posts.

State prosecutor Alex Moolman referred to posts in which Zuma-Sambudla shared a video of a burning truck accompanied by the caption “Amandla” and #FreeZuma.

Judge questions limits of linguistic evidence

Mpofu repeatedly challenged the state’s line of questioning, arguing that Khumalo-Simelane’s expertise was limited to translating language and did not qualify her to determine the accused’s intended meaning.

Judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa acknowledged the defence’s concerns and emphasised the boundaries of the witness’s expertise.

“This witness was sent an email to interpret words that were written on the email… so her expertise is limited to linguistic aspects,” Mathenjwa remarked.

Moolman attempted to explain his process.

“The evidence before court is that you cannot separate the text from the media.

“The witness herself has explained that the context or meaning of the phrase might change if it’s used with other words,” the prosecutor argued.

Judge Mbuzeni Johnson Mathenjwa at the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) High Court in Durban on 10 November 2025. Picture: Gallo Images/Darren Stewart

Defence objects to questions about unrest footage

Mpofu later renewed his objection.

“My Lord, I’m really trying to save everyone’s time. We are just busy wasting time,” the lawyer said.

“We can’t be ambushed in court with somebody whose statement says their job is to translate and now she is being asked about interpretation,” Mpofu continued.

The defence also objected to questions concerning the videos and images depicting the unrest.

Mathenjwa agreed that the witness was not qualified to address those aspects of the evidence.

“I can safely say right now that the issue of the trucks and the pictures… that one I will not allow because the witness is not qualified,” the judge emphasised.

Khumalo-Simelane agreed with Mpofu during cross-examination that translating words from English into Zulu could sometimes be difficult.

The trial will resume on Tuesday, 27 October.