The police’s elite corruption-busting agency, the Hawks, confirmed her arrest in January this year – nearly four years after the deadly protests.

“The fact that so few unrest-related cases have reached conviction also raises eyebrows around whether the prosecution is selective,” Mr Els said.

There have only been a handful of other cases relating to the violence in 2021 that have reached court.

The South African Human Rights Commission, in a statement released earlier this year, indicated that 66 possible cases were currently with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) but it faced challenges due to a “general lack of evidence… and hesitations by witnesses to co-operate or testify due to fears of reprisal and victimisation”.

In the Zuma-Sambudla case, the “high evidentiary bar” will be a big challenge for the prosecutors to show that it was not “just commentary or protest”.

“Prosecutors need to prove intent and causation that a post directly incited terrorism.”

He added that there were “few successful prosecutions” under the relevant legislation and that it was the first time in South Africa’s “legal history that someone has been charged specifically with incitement of terrorism via social media”.

NPA spokesperson Mthunzi Mhaga acknowledged in January that the case was “complex in nature” and prosecutors had to bring in external “experts on social media because [the police don’t] have an expert on social media”.

The NPA, however, would not have taken it this far if it was not confident with the case it had built, Mr Els added.

The MK has slammed the case against Zuma-Sambudla as a “social injustice”, while spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndlela dismissed the “trumped up charges” as a “political ploy” and persecution.

Regardless of whether the prosecution is successful or not the party could make hay from the case and present her as a martyr.

Meanwhile, it is likely to generate massive interest from the public and become part of the country’s continuing Zuma drama.