Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla trial: Defence challenges investigating officer over contradictory statements

Former President Jacob Zuma's daughter Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla in the dock at the Durban High Court during her July 2021 unrest trial.

The credibility of the investigation into Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla’s alleged role in the July 2021 unrest came under renewed scrutiny in the Durban High Court on Tuesday, as defence advocate Dali Mpofu questioned an investigating officer about inconsistencies in his statements.

Detective Bheki Nazo, the investigating officer in the case, remained under cross-examination as the defence sought to establish how he reached his initial conclusion that Zuma-Sambudla had conspired with others to instigate unrest.

The case centres on allegations that social media posts by the daughter of former president Jacob Zuma incited violence during the deadly July 2021 unrest in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng. Zuma-Sambudla denies the allegations and is contesting the charges.

Mpofu focused on three statements made by Nazo, arguing that their contents raised questions about the basis of his conclusions and the reliability of the investigation.

The court heard that Nazo had formed the view that Zuma-Sambudla was involved in the alleged offences by July 15, 2021. He confirmed that this assessment appeared in his first statement.

The defence also referred to a statement dated January 6, 2022, attributed to Joseph Steinberg, which Nazo said had informed his thinking.

Steinberg is a well-known cybersecurity expert, author, advisor, and expert witness specialising in cybercrime, digital privacy, and artificial intelligence.

Mpofu argued that the investigating officer’s evidence was favourable to the defence and questioned why the State had not called him to testify.

The defence advocate suggested that Nazo had been given statements by people acting against Zuma-Sambudla and had simply signed them, rather than independently establishing the facts underpinning their allegations.

Nazo previously acknowledged an error in his first statement. However, when the second and third statements were examined in court, Mpofu argued that the accounts contained substantially similar views despite the identified error.

The advocate challenged Nazo to explain how the statements could be reconciled, arguing that the court needed to determine which account was accurate.

A key point of contention was a paragraph in which Nazo had written: “Unless Duduzile is arrested, she will continue to incite more people and plan more violent riots that harm the economy of the province.”

Nazo told the court that the wording of the paragraph was erroneous. He maintained, however, that the other paragraphs were correct, explaining that he had continued receiving intelligence information while preparing the statement.

He said the information came from the crime intelligence team.

The exchange placed the focus on the distinction between information received by investigators and conclusions drawn from that information about Zuma-Sambudla’s alleged conduct.

The court also heard evidence about the steps taken to investigate Zuma-Sambudla’s cellphone and financial records.

On July 21, 2021, Nazo applied for an order under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act to obtain records relevant to the investigation.

The application followed his earlier assessment that Zuma-Sambudla had conspired with others to bring about riots and unrest, an opinion he said he had already recorded in his first statement on July 15.

The statement by Sarah-Jane Trent, whose complaint prompted the investigation, was dated July 13, 2021.

Trent is a South African legal professional, certified fraud examiner, and former forensic research assistant to prominent private investigator Paul O'Sullivan at Forensics for Justice.

Earlier testimony in the trial addressed efforts to examine cellphone communications and financial transactions for possible links between Zuma-Sambudla and people involved in the unrest. Nazo’s evidence on the investigation’s findings has also raised questions about whether the records established a direct link to the alleged offences.

During the exchange over the statements, Nazo told the court that he was uncomfortable while giving evidence.

Mpofu responded that making the witness comfortable was not the defence’s responsibility, as he continued pressing him on the discrepancies.

The cross-examination is significant because the defence is challenging not only the conclusions reached during the investigation but also the process through which those conclusions were recorded and supported.

Zuma-Sambudla faces charges relating to alleged incitement to commit terrorism and public violence, as well as a charge under the Riotous Assemblies Act. The State alleges that her social media activity contributed to the violence that followed her father’s imprisonment in July 2021.

The trial continues in the Durban High Court.