During cross-examination in Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla trial, the State has agreed that tweets that were attributed to her during the deadly 2021 unrest could have been generated by AI.

She is accused of inciting terror and public violence linked to the July 2021 unrest which erupted after the arrest of her father, former president Jacob Zuma.

During the fierce cross-examination, Zuma-Sambudla’s attorney, Advocate Dali Mpofu asked whether there was a possibility that some of the messages attributed to his client’s X account could have been generated by Bot- an automatic computer-generated software programme. 

The State witness, investigating officer Brigadier Jenine Steynberg agreed that it is possible, however, she stated that it could be less than five messages, not all of them.

“Yes my Lord, it is possible that some of the accused’s tweets could have been generated by BOT, however it could be less than five as Bot could not generate more messages,” said Steynberg. 

She further argued that Bot could not use most of the language that was used in the tweets. Steynberg from Cape Town is a cybercrime investigator with SAPS who after the unrest was tasked to investigate whether Zuma-Sambudla used the social media to incite public violence that led to the death of more than 300 people and cost the economy billions of rands. She started her testimony on Monday.

The defence also challenged her testimony where she accused Zuma-Sambudla of advocating tribalism. Mpofu demanded she withdrew and apologised to his client, however she refused, stating that she did not accuse her of tribalism but had said that she used every possible means including tribalism to get the public to push for the release of her father.

In one of the posts, Zuma-Sambudla had posted the picture of the late Henry Cele who plays Shaka Zulu in the movie Shaka- IIembe.

The argument between the witness and the defence forced Judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa to intervene and cautioned against the use of tribalism which can invoke tribal tensions. 

Mpofu also cross-examined Steynberg on the difference between the authorship and the owner of the messages.  He argued that the messages appearing under his client’s X account would not necessarily mean she authored them.

Steynberg replied that it will always be difficult to determine who is the author or owner of the message, arguing that it can always be confirmed by an eye witness who may have seen the author sitting behind the device typing on the account of someone.

“My Lord, if I am sitting here sending the message, the only conclusion that one can draw is that it is my message as the sender unless proven otherwise,” said Steynberg.

The State is expected to wrap up the day by calling a social media analyst.

The trial continues.

willem.phungula@inl.co.za

Source link