State must prove link to incitement - Mpofu tells court in Zuma-Sambudla case

Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla is the accused in a South African terrorism case connected to the July 2021 unrest. The case matters because prosecutors say her conduct may have encouraged unlawful activity during a period of serious violence and destruction. The supplied headlines identify her as the person on trial, but do not provide a full biography or list every charge.

The State argues there are reasonable grounds for her conviction over the July unrest. Her lawyer, Mpofu, is seeking a discharge, using the argument that the prosecution has not shown a sufficient link between her alleged conduct and the crimes committed. One headline summarises the defence position as: “You can’t incite the air.”

The court is considering whether the evidence can support the case continuing. A separate headline says Zuma-Sambudla would hear her fate in the terrorism case the following week. The outcome will depend on whether the State has established a legally meaningful connection between her alleged actions and the unrest.

In criminal law, incitement generally means deliberately encouraging, urging, or assisting another person to commit a criminal act. It focuses on the accused person’s words, conduct, or communication and the unlawful behaviour those actions allegedly encouraged. The precise test depends on the country’s law and the charge.

For example, a message telling supporters to attack a building could be treated as incitement if prosecutors prove that it was intentional and directed toward criminal conduct. A message that is angry, reckless, or politically extreme is not automatically incitement. Prosecutors usually need to show more than a troubling opinion or a vague expression of support.

The Zuma-Sambudla case turns on that distinction. The headlines report that Mpofu says the State must prove a link between the alleged conduct and the unrest. They also report the defence phrase, “You can’t incite the air,” meaning an alleged encouragement must connect to unlawful action in a legally meaningful way.

Mpofu’s argument concerns causation and legal responsibility. He says the State must prove more than that Zuma-Sambudla made posts, statements, or took actions during a tense period. It must show that those alleged acts encouraged unlawful conduct and had a legally meaningful connection to the unrest for which she is being prosecuted.

The defence’s reported phrase, “You can’t incite the air,” captures the point. An example would be a message allegedly urging attacks, followed by evidence that people acted on it. The mechanism could involve the message’s content, timing, intended audience, reach, and its relationship to specific crimes. The supplied headlines do not identify the exact messages or acts relied on.

The State argues there are reasonable grounds for conviction. The court must therefore decide whether the evidence crosses the threshold needed to keep the case alive. If the link is missing, Mpofu is seeking a discharge. If it is sufficient, the terrorism case can proceed toward judgment.

South Africa’s July 2021 unrest was a wave of protests, looting, arson, and violence concentrated first in KwaZulu-Natal and then spreading to Gauteng. It followed Jacob Zuma’s imprisonment for contempt of court after he refused to comply with a judicial order requiring him to appear before a state capture inquiry. Supporters initially protested his arrest and imprisonment.

The unrest widened quickly. Roads were disrupted, shopping centres and warehouses were looted, and some businesses and buildings were burned. The violence also reflected broader social and economic tensions, including poverty, unemployment, and inequality. Organised criminal activity and opportunistic looting became part of the disorder as security forces struggled to contain it.

The supplied article headlines refer to the July unrest but do not provide this background or detailed figures. They focus instead on Zuma-Sambudla’s trial and the prosecution’s alleged link between her conduct and the unrest. Her case asks whether individual communications can attract criminal responsibility for wider disorder.

The July 2021 unrest was among South Africa’s most damaging episodes of post-apartheid public disorder. Widely cited government and inquiry figures put the death toll at 354 people. More than 3,000 people were arrested, while shops, warehouses, factories, transport facilities, and other property were looted or damaged. The supplied article headlines do not state these figures.

The economic impact was also severe. Estimates commonly placed the losses at roughly R50 billion, including destroyed stock, damaged buildings, interrupted trade, and wider business disruption. The unrest affected supply routes and exposed how quickly violence could spread when policing and security capacity were overwhelmed.

These figures explain why the Zuma-Sambudla prosecution matters beyond one defendant. The State is seeking to connect alleged conduct to a national crisis with major human and economic consequences. The headlines, however, give no detailed breakdown of deaths, arrests, property losses, or the economic estimate, so those figures come from established external reporting and official assessments.

A discharge means the court finds that the prosecution has not presented enough evidence for the accused to be called on to answer the case. In practical terms, the State would not be allowed to continue the present prosecution on those charges at that stage. It is different from a finding that every allegation was factually disproved.

In this case, Mpofu is asking for a discharge because he says the State has not connected Zuma-Sambudla’s alleged conduct to the July unrest. If the court accepts that argument, the terrorism case would end in her favour at the current trial stage. The prosecution’s case would fail because the evidence did not meet the required threshold.

If the court rejects the application, the case can continue and the court can assess the evidence in full. The supplied headlines say the State argues there are reasonable grounds for conviction and that Zuma-Sambudla would hear her fate the following week. They do not report the final ruling.

Proving encouragement alone protects the boundary between criminal conduct and lawful speech. A person may express anger, support a cause, or discuss unrest without intending to cause a crime. Prosecutors must therefore show that the accused deliberately encouraged unlawful conduct, as required by the relevant offence.

They must also prove the connection between that encouragement and the alleged crime or unrest. For example, evidence might concern the message’s wording, timing, audience, distribution, and whether it helped prompt specific unlawful acts. The exact legal test varies by offence and jurisdiction, but the central concern is fair attribution: responsibility should not be imposed merely because a person spoke before disorder occurred.

That principle is central to Zuma-Sambudla’s case. Mpofu says the State must link her alleged words or actions to the unrest, while the NPA argues there are reasonable grounds for conviction. The court’s decision will show whether the evidence meets the threshold for the case to proceed.