Zuma-Sambudla Incitement Trial: Social Media Expert Emma Sadlier Cross-Examined Over "We See You" Posts

Expert Emma Sadlier analyzes the "We See You" posts in the incitement trial of Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla. Get the latest from the Durban High Court.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 13, 2026, 6:57 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from Eyewitness News (EWN)

Expert Testimony on Social Media Semantics

The trial of Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, daughter of former President Jacob Zuma, resumed with a focus on digital evidence. Emma Sadlier, a prominent social media expert, underwent cross-examination regarding her analysis of Zuma-Sambudla’s online behavior during the 2021 July unrest. The State contends that the accused used her platform to fuel widespread looting and destruction. Sadlier clarified her report to the court, noting that while the phrase "WE SEE YOU" is not inherently violent, in the context of the accused's posts, it served as a marker of "recognition, admiration, gratitude, and identifier."

Charges and Context of the 2021 Unrest

Zuma-Sambudla faces serious charges, including incitement to commit public violence and terrorism-related offenses. These charges are linked to the week-long riots in July 2021, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 350 people and caused billions of rands in economic damage across South Africa. The prosecution argues that her social media accounts played a significant role in coordinating or motivating the individuals involved in the unrest, a claim the defense has consistently denied.

Defense Claims "Political Witch-Hunt"

Members of the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party have rallied behind the former MP, labeling the legal proceedings a "political witch-hunt" aimed at the Zuma family. The defense has argued that the State lacks a concrete case and is using the trial to suppress political opposition. Zuma-Sambudla previously pleaded not guilty to all charges, and her foundation has accused the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) of abusing its power by proceeding with the trial despite what they describe as a lack of evidence.