When Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, was found guilty of unlawful gun possession on 1 October 2025, South Africa’s political arena got a jolt that could echo for years. The conviction was handed down by the East London Magistrate's Court, presided over by Magistrate Twanet Olafia, after a decade‑old video showed Malema firing shots into the air during the party’s fifth‑anniversary rally at Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane. The court’s decision carries a possible 15‑year sentence and could strip the opposition firebrand of his parliamentary seat, a development that may shift the balance of power in the National Assembly.
The EFF’s 5th anniversary on 1 April 2018 was meant to be a showcase of its growing grassroots influence. Thousands gathered at Sisa Dukashe Stadium, a venue that had previously hosted concerts and sports events, but that day it became the stage for a dramatic display. According to eyewitnesses and a viral clip that later surfaced online, Malema lifted a handgun and fired a series of blanks—later argued in court to be a real firearm—into the cheering crowd.
"It was meant to energise the people," a longtime EFF supporter told reporters. "We thought it was a symbolic gesture, not a threat." The State, however, argued that discharging a weapon in a densely packed public space amounted to reckless endangerment, a charge that carries heavy penalties under South Africa’s Firearms Control Act.
The trial, which commenced in August 2025, centred on three charges: unlawful possession of a firearm, reckless endangerment of life, and firing a weapon in a public place. Malema’s co‑accused, former bodyguard Adriaan Snyman, was acquitted on all counts, a contrast that underscored the court’s focus on the leader’s personal responsibility.
Magistrate Olafia, in a 20‑minute judgment, emphasized that "the State presented credible and reliable witnesses" and dismissed the defence’s reliance on an unverifiable video clip. She noted that Malema’s own testimony was evasive, saying, "Mr. Malema avoided key questions, offering entertaining but unhelpful answers."
The magistrate also rejected Malema’s claim that the gun was a toy, stating that the weapon’s calibre and the number of rounds fired could not be dismissed as a harmless prop. "The evidence shows a real firearm was used, and the potential for harm was undeniable," she wrote.
In sentencing, the court reserved the final decision, but the maximum penalty for the combined offences stands at 15 years imprisonment. The judgment also opens the door for Malema to be disqualified from holding public office under Section 47 of the Constitution.
Immediately after the verdict, Malema rose from his seat, leaned into the microphone, and declared: "This is a politically and racially charged case. We will appeal straight to the Constitutional Court because the judgment is faulty." He framed the trial as part of a broader pattern of persecution, alleging that "systemic targeting" of black leaders is a legacy of colonial‑era bias.
EFF spokesperson Miriam Mokaba echoed those sentiments, accusing the judiciary of succumbing to "foreign pressure, especially from the United States, to curb our movement’s voice." The party’s legal team, reportedly expanding to include two senior advocates from the Johannesburg Bar, vowed to file an appeal within days.
Opposition parties responded with a mix of caution and criticism. The Democratic Alliance’s parliamentary leader, John Steenhuisen, said, "If the law is applied evenly, this is a clear case of unlawful conduct. No politician should be above the law." Meanwhile, the African National Congress called for "a calm and orderly legal process" and urged the public to let the courts decide.
The conviction could have immediate ramifications for the balance of power in Parliament. The EFF holds 40 seats, and an automatic loss of Malema’s seat would trigger a by‑election in his constituency, potentially altering coalition dynamics. Moreover, a successful appeal to the Constitutional Court of South Africa could set a precedent for how political speech and public displays involving firearms are judged.
Legal scholars are already weighing in. Professor Lindiwe Mazibuko of the University of Cape Town cautioned that "the case straddles the line between criminal law and political rights. A reversal could embolden other politicians to test the limits of public safety statutes." Conversely, constitutional law expert Patrick Du Preez argued that "the judiciary must send a clear message that endangering crowds, even for theatrical effect, is unacceptable."
South Africa records one of the highest firearm‑related homicide rates in the world, with an estimated 2,300 gun deaths in 2023 alone. The government's National Firearms Control Strategy, revised in 2022, seeks to curb illegal possession through stricter licensing and increased policing, but critics say enforcement remains uneven.
The Malema verdict arrives at a time when civil society groups, such as the Gun Free South Africa Coalition, have intensified calls for tougher penalties. "When a high‑profile figure is held accountable, it signals to ordinary citizens that the law applies to all," said coalition chairperson Thando Nkosi after the ruling.
Under South African law, Malema has 30 days to lodge an appeal to the Eastern Cape High Court, which can then refer the matter to the Constitutional Court if constitutional issues are raised. His legal team is expected to argue that the magistrate’s dismissal of video evidence violated his right to a fair trial.
If the appeal proceeds, the case could linger for months, during which Malema will likely continue his parliamentary duties unless a suspension order is issued. The EFF has already prepared a backup communication strategy, promising to keep its supporters informed through social media livestreams and town‑hall meetings.
If the conviction is upheld and a sentencing order includes disqualification from public office, Malema would lose his seat in the National Assembly, prompting a by‑election in his constituency and potentially reshaping the EFF’s parliamentary strength.
He can first appeal to the Eastern Cape High Court within 30 days. Should constitutional arguments arise—such as alleged unfair trial procedures—that court may refer the case to the Constitutional Court of South Africa for a final decision.
Magistrate Olafia ruled the clip’s provenance could not be verified, meaning its authenticity and chain of custody were uncertain. Without a reliable source, the video could not be treated as admissible proof.
It underscores the government's challenge of enforcing firearm regulations, especially when high‑profile figures appear to flout them. The case may encourage stricter enforcement and fuel public debate on balancing political expression with public safety.
Yes, South Africa has previously removed members whose convictions involved fraud or corruption. The constitution mandates that a person sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment loses eligibility to sit in the legislature.
saurav kumar
October 3, 2025 AT 04:57The verdict highlights the rule of law.