By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The judgment has been reserved in the case against Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema and his former bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman.
Malema and Snyman returned to the East London Magistrate’s Court on Monday, where closing arguments were heard.
They are accused of firing a gun in public at the EFF’s 2018 anniversary rally. They have both pleaded not guilty, and Malema has told the court the firearm was a toy.
During the proceedings, Malema’s legal counsel, Advocate Laurence Hodes, SC, listed several reasons why the EFF leader should be acquitted of the charges, stating that the state had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
He said the viral video at the centre of the case could not be authenticated and that no witness had testified to seeing Malema discharge a weapon.
“There is no evidence linking the firearm to Malema. The stage showed no signs of any physical damage, and no live rounds were recovered,” said Hodes.
He added that thousands of people were in attendance on the day, yet not a single eyewitness came forward, nor did any member of the SAPS VIP Protection Unit report anything untoward.
Meanwhile, Advocate Shane Matthews told the court Malema’s co-accused, Adriaan Snyman, should also be acquitted, as the state had brought no evidence to substantiate the claim that his client had given Malema a loaded gun and endangered public safety.
He said the State had further “conceded that in the viral video in question, the rifle handover cannot be proven.There is no evidence that Snyman was in possession of a loaded firearm.”
He argued that “the State is not in a position to secure a conviction as Snyman did not unlawfully supply a firearm to a person not allowed to possess a firearm.”
Addressing the link between the rifle and cartridges found, Matthews said, “Larry Mavundla signing out the rifle had nothing to do with Snyman. If anyone could have answered to that, it would have been Larry Mavundla.”
He added, “He was present in East London, he was present at the stadium, he was present on stage, so I am failing to understand why the State did not engage Larry Mavundla.”
He criticised the use of the video, stating: “Certain steps should have been taken to authenticate the video,” and suggested that “there should be a guideline on how these videos should be accepted by the court.”
To illustrate the dangers of unauthenticated content, he told the court, “I had actually seen a video of Her Worship, Magistrate Twanette Olivier, dancing on the EFF stage.
Prosecutor Joel Cesar responded to the closing arguments by stating that the spent cartridges found at Sisa Dukashe Stadium were discovered two days after the EFF’s celebrations and were linked to Snyman’s company.
He said four cartridges had tested positive to the spent case cartridge found. “Among many guns handed in, the rifle in question was the only one with changed parts — the bolt carrier, the bridge lock had been changed to affect the outcome of the firearm.”
He disputed the defence’s argument on the video, saying that the only issue was the relevance of the video, but never its authenticity. “The defence never made submissions proving that the video had been edited or doctored.”
He further maintained that “The evidence before the court is real, and the issue of Mavundla being subpoenaed would have been a waste of State resources.”
He said it was Malema’s evidence that the firearm was given to Mavundla. And the spent cartridges linked to Mavundla’s gun were found in close proximity to the stage.”
He concluded by countering the defence’s argument that the crowd did not react: “The submission that no one was scared was incorrect, as at least seven people had moved away when Malema had fired in their direction.”
The trial had been set down to continue until Wednesday, with the accused hoping the Magistrate would be in a position to deliver judgment. However, Magistrate Olivier asked for a postponement.
The case has been postponed to 29 September 2025 for judgment.
Malema addressed the media outside court, saying Magistrate Olivier’s delay in handing down judgment is driven by a particular motive, as she had ample time to go through the heads of argument and deliver judgment.
“In a normal Magistrate court, the magistrate would have passed judgment and said I will send my reasons later, because matters have been canvassed with her for a very long time. And these heads of arguments were submitted to her by December.”
“You can see clearly it’s a political trial, a lot of manoeuvring needs to be done, and they will now decide as to whether they are moving in which direction.”