By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The firearm case involving the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema was postponed in the East London Magistrate’s Court on Friday, and pre-sentencing procedures will continue on 15 April.
Malema was convicted last year on five counts of contravening the Firearms Control Act related to the discharge of an automatic weapon in public, during the EFF’s fifth anniversary celebrations in Sisa Dukashe stadium in Mdantsane in 2018.
Malema appeared in the East London Magistrate’s Court for a pre-sentencing hearing on Friday.
Supporters, donning an assortment of red shirts, caps, berets and flags, flooded the streets of the city’s CBD late on Thursday.
Malema was convicted in 2025 on several firearms-related charges.
The court found that Malema had taken an assault rifle from his former bodyguard and co-accused, Adriaan Snyman, and fired several shots into the air during the event.
The court rejected Malema’s claims that the assault rifle was a toy and fired blanks, and he was found guilty of several crimes, including unlawful possession of a firearm‚ unlawful possession of ammunition‚ discharging a firearm in a built-up area or public place and reckless endangerment of people or property.
Snyman was acquitted of the charges against him, which included failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to people or property and providing a firearm/ammunition to a person not allowed to possess it.
According to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Malema faces a potential minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for an offence related to the possession of an automatic or semi-automatic firearm.
However, should he prove exceptional or compelling circumstances, the court is likely to deviate from the prescribed sentence.
But a sentence of longer than 12 months, without the option of a fine, could have far-reaching implications. In accordance with the Constitution, such a sentence would bar him from being an MP for five years after the sentence.
During the proceedings, a private practice social worker’s recommended that Malema receive a fine rather than a custodial sentence came under sharp scrutiny during pre-sentencing proceedings.
Jessie Thompson testified as part of Malema’s mitigation of sentence and told the court her role was to assist in ensuring an appropriate and individualised sentence.
She described Malema as a 44-year-old family man who supports his wife, three children, and extended family, assists the poor, advocates for the depressed, enjoys soccer and DJing, and values family time.
Referring to video footage, Thompson said she saw no evidence of people appearing fearful when the firearm was discharged. She said Malema was surrounded by tactical security, had no intention to cause harm, and returned the firearm shortly afterwards.
While acknowledging the act may have been reckless and could have resulted in loss of life, Thompson said no harm occurred.
She added that although Malema maintains his innocence, he regrets that his actions as a public figure may have created the perception that celebratory firearm use is acceptable.
She proposed sentencing options, including a fine and a monetary contribution towards gun violence awareness as restitution.
During cross-examination, Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi addressed criticism from State prosecutor Advocate Joe Caesar, who argued that a fine could be viewed as Malema “paying his way out of prison” due to his status and affordability.
Thompson responded that sentencing should be guided by legislation, not a person’s profile.
She further rejected claims that she was a “social worker for hire”, saying she spent about five hours compiling the report and that her task was not to judge Malema’s character but to assist the court on sentencing.
She further argued that Malema did not intend harm, possessed the firearm briefly and that removing someone who contributes positively to society and supports a family should be carefully weighed when considering a custodial sentence.
However, Magistrate Twanett Olivier raised several concerns while seeking clarity on the report.
She questioned what made Thompson’s report unique, saying courts receive many similar reports. She asked what was exceptional about Malema’s personal circumstances.
Olivier also challenged argument that community contribution should weigh heavily in sentencing, asking whether this meant that anyone who does good work could be excused for committing an offence. This is related to a reference made to a soup kitchen supported through EFF donations.
The magistrate pressed Thompson on why the “celebratory” nature of the shooting was relevant.
She asked: “So what? You said it was brief, it was in celebration and it was not violent and you couldn’t find a similar case.”
Olivier questioned whether Thompson was suggesting that discharging a firearm must be accompanied by violence to be considered serious, and whether the absence of a similar case made the offence less significant.
On the issue of remorse, Thompson said Malema regrets the perception created by his actions but maintains his innocence.
However, Magistrate Olivier pressed that remorse is not a requirement in the magistrates’ court despite the accused’s desire to “right a wrong”.
Thompson maintained that Malema’s status should not influence sentencing, although his role may carry greater responsibility. She reiterated that there was no intended target when the firearm was discharged.
State advocate Joel Cesar referred Thompson to several cases in her report where she recommended non-custodial sentences, or shortened terms of imprisonment, for serious crimes, including murder and domestic violence.
He intimated that she had a tendency to be lenient in her recommendations, and cited other cases where perpetrators faced similar charges to Malema and were sentenced to eight years behind bars.
Thompson rejected Cesar’s submission that her recommendations were that Malema “buy his way out of prison”.
The matter was postponed until 15 April, and counsel for the defence and State are expected to file their final heads of argument for sentencing no later than two weeks before the next court appearance.
Addressing the crowds after court proceedings concluded, and adding to the ongoing chants of “Voetsek AfriForum”, Malema repeated his stance that the charges that AfriForum brought against him were racially motivated and that there was no room for that kind of racism in South Africa.
“We must never be shaken by a court that is informed by hatred and the politics of AfriForum,” Malema said.
He said the day EFF became the ruling party in South Africa, it intended to lock up all AfriForum members as terrorists for being “anti-South African”.