Mpofu accuses investigating officer of being a ‘conduit’ in Zuma-Sambudla terrorism trial

Advocate Dali Mpofu has challenged the credibility of the investigating officer in Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s terrorism trial, accusing him of adopting the complainant’s views without adequately questioning the circumstances surrounding the allegations against his client.

Mpofu, who represents the former uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party MP, put Colonel Bheki Nazo under pressure during cross-examination in the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) High Court in Durban on Tuesday, 27 October 2026, questioning his initial conclusions and the extent to which he had independently investigated the case.

Nazo, a commander of the South African Police Service (Saps) KZN’s serious organised crime unit, is the investigating officer in the case against Zuma-Sambudla, who faces one count of incitement to commit terrorism and two counts of incitement to commit public violence.

The charges stem from the deadly July 2021 unrest that swept through KZN and Gauteng following the incarceration of her father, former president Jacob Zuma, for contempt of court.

The state alleges that social media posts by Zuma-Sambudla, who has pleaded not guilty, encouraged participation in the violence and contributed to its escalation.

Mpofu questions officer in Zuma-Sambudla terrorism trial

Tuesday’s proceedings partly focused on the apparent inconsistency between two statements in Nazo’s affidavit concerning Zuma-Sambudla’s alleged involvement in the unrest.

Mpofu challenged the officer over paragraph 17, in which he stated that he believed Zuma-Sambudla had conspired with others, and paragraph 20, in which he expressed concern that she would continue inciting people unless she was arrested.

The lawyer questioned why Nazo regarded one statement as a mistake but stood by the other, despite both appearing in the same document.

“I’m saying to you that you are busy misleading this court and actually being untruthful,” Mpofu remarked

“The first one is a mistake, while the second one is not a mistake, and you are the same person making both statements in the same document. What is that?” he further said on Tuesday.

‘Conduit pipe’

Mpofu further questioned whether Nazo had independently formed his views about Zuma-Sambudla or had relied on information and conclusions supplied by forensic examiner Paul O’Sullivan’s former employee, Sarah-Jane Trent, who is the complainant in the case.

The lawyer suggested that the investigating officer had signed off on a prepared statement without properly scrutinising its contents, arguing that Nazo had “formed his views” about Zuma-Sambudla before the investigation had even begun.

Trent previously testified that she had laid a complaint and deposed an affidavit on 14 July 2021.

Mpofu accused Nazo of effectively repeating Trent’s statement rather than conducting an independent assessment of the allegations.

“In other words, you were just a conduit pipe to parrot Sarah-Jane Trent’s views,” he told Nazo.

The exchange turned to Trent’s professional association with O’Sullivan, whom Mpofu linked to individuals he described as “political rivals” of Zuma-Sambudla’s father.

Nazo agreed that he had not known Trent worked for O’Sullivan.

However, he rejected the suggestion that this information would have changed his approach to the investigation.

Mpofu then alleged that Trent’s actions against Zuma-Sambudla were politically motivated.

“I put to Ms Sarah-Jane Trent that the reason she was harassing the accused person was politically motivated because she worked for Mr O’Sullivan, who is known to be a friend or associate of, among others, Mr Cyril Ramaphosa.”

‘We look at the facts’

Nazo maintained that the investigation should be guided by evidence rather than assumptions about the complainant or their associations.

“The motive can only be established when the investigation has started. So, there’s one wouldn’t have started the investigation,” the colonel told the court.

He continued: “That would be incorrect. We don’t look at the person; we look at the facts.”

Mpofu was critical of Nazo’s explanation, arguing that an investigating officer should consider the possible motives of a person bringing allegations before the authorities.

He described the officer’s response as “fanciful evidence” and suggested that Nazo had failed to exercise the necessary independent judgement.

“Everybody knows that the possible motive of the person who is complaining is a key part of any investigation, but it looks like maybe you went to a different school of investigation,” Mpofu argued, adding that Nazo “acted like a robot” rather than critically examining the allegations.

Judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa subsequently intervened, asking whether Nazo had questioned why Trent had singled out Zuma-Sambudla from among the thousands of people who participated in the July 2021 unrest.

Nazo responded by explaining that he had asked the complainant about the reasons for submitting her affidavit.

“I asked her, my Lord, to say, ‘What is it that drove you to submit this affidavit?’,’ the officer clarified.

Mpofu says officer’s testimony could hurt state’s case

Earlier, Mpofu questioned the state’s decision-making after it initially indicated that it would not call Nazo to testify before reversing that position.

The lawyer suggested that the investigating officer’s evidence was “more helpful” to Zuma-Sambudla’s defence rather than strengthen the prosecution’s case.

“Actually, it’s hurtful to the state,” Mpofu said.

“I have no comment,” Nazo replied.

The trial will continue on Thursday, 29 October.