The appearance of former president Jacob Zuma’s name in newly released United States Justice Department documents linked to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation has reignited public debate, even as his foundation has dismissed the matter as an unfounded smear.

The documents form part of the latest tranche of the so-called Epstein Files, which include emails and records reviewed by US authorities during investigations into Epstein’s network. One email cited in reports refers to arrangements for a dinner involving then president Jacob Zuma, mentioning a request for a young woman to attend the event. The email itself does not allege wrongdoing by Zuma, nor does it suggest he was aware of or involved in any criminal conduct.

Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy American financier, was arrested in 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking involving minors. He had previously been convicted in 2008 on prostitution-related charges. Epstein died in a New York jail while awaiting trial, in what authorities ruled a suicide. Over the years, investigations and court processes have exposed the extent of his social connections with politicians, royalty, business leaders and celebrities across the world, many of whom have denied knowledge of his crimes.

In South Africa, the renewed focus on Zuma’s name has drawn a sharp response from the Jacob Zuma Foundation. Its spokesperson, Mzwanele Manyi, described the reports as “agenda-driven journalism built on innuendo, third-party emails and retrospective guilt by association”.

“At no point does the article allege, let alone establish, any unlawful or improper conduct by Jacob Zuma,” the foundation said, adding that it would not engage in “speculative narrative-building disguised as investigative journalism”.

Despite the firm denial, the disclosure has triggered mixed reactions on social media. Some users argued that being mentioned in an email does not amount to evidence of wrongdoing. Others questioned the nature of Zuma’s associations at the time, pointing to claims that Epstein arranged a dinner at a luxury hotel and boasted about the guests involved.

One X user wrote that there was “nothing wrong with being mentioned in an email”, while another referenced figures allegedly linked to Epstein who were present in photographs and correspondence. A third suggested the need for greater scrutiny of intermediaries involved in organising high-level political events.

As with many names appearing in the Epstein files, Zuma’s inclusion highlights the uncomfortable reality of Epstein’s far-reaching social circle. For now, the documents raise questions rather than provide answers, leaving the public to weigh denial, context and the distinction between association and accountability.