Key Points
- Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters EFF, was found guilty on all five firearm-related charges stemming from a 2018 incident at an EFF rally in Mdantsane, Eastern Cape.
- The charges include unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a public area, reckless endangerment, and failure to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger.
- The verdict was delivered by Magistrate Twanet Olivier at the East London Magistrate’s Court on 30 September 2025 after a protracted trial.
- Malema’s former bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman, was acquitted of the charges against him and discharged from the case.
- The prosecution relied on authenticated footage from Gearhouse, the event’s audio-visual provider, while the court excluded viral video due to lack of authentication.
- AfriForum, which laid the initial criminal charges in 2018, welcomed the verdict as a victory for accountability and the rule of law.
- Malema faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison, with sentencing scheduled for 23 January 2026.
- Malema has announced plans to appeal, alleging political motivation and citing the acquittal of his white bodyguard as evidence of bias.
- The court dismissed Malema’s claim that the firearm was a toy, noting his inconsistent testimony, including a remark that the cartridge must have been placed by the “Holy Spirit”.
- Malema remains out on bail until sentencing, with pre-sentencing reports to be prepared in the interim.
Inverted Pyramid: The Verdict and Immediate Aftermath
As reported by Byron Pillay of Briefly News, the gavel came down in the East London Magistrate’s Court on 30 September 2025, marking a pivotal moment in South African political and legal history. Magistrate Twanet Olivier delivered a comprehensive judgment convicting Julius Malema, the Commander-in-Chief of the Economic Freedom Fighters EFF, on all five counts related to the unlawful discharge of a firearm during the party’s fifth-anniversary rally in 2018.
“Accused one Malema, in respect of counts one, two, three, four, and five you are found guilty as charged,”
stated Olivier in her ruling, a moment captured and reported by Daily News. The courtroom, filled with EFF supporters, fell silent as the verdict was read, with Malema and his co-accused, Adriaan Snyman, sitting quietly in the dock.
Snyman, a private security contractor who was accused of handing the rifle to Malema, was acquitted on the charges he faced and discharged from the case. Despite his acquittal, Snyman remained by Malema’s side throughout the proceedings, a gesture noted by multiple outlets including AllAfrica. The state had argued that the discharge of the firearm endangered approximately 20,000 attendees at the Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane, a densely populated area where such actions posed a significant public safety risk. Malema’s defence maintained that the firearm was a non-functional replica that fired blanks, a claim the magistrate ultimately rejected based on ballistic and forensic evidence presented during the trial.
What Were the Charges Against Malema?
The five charges on which Malema was convicted are serious offences under South Africa’s Firearms Control Act. As detailed by AllAfrica, these include unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, discharging a firearm in a public space, reckless endangerment of persons or property, and failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent danger. The incident occurred on 28 July 2018 during the EFF’s birthday celebration, an event widely covered by national media at the time. Video evidence, particularly from Gearhouse—the company responsible for staging and audio-visual services—was deemed admissible by the court due to its verifiable chain of custody. Magistrate Olivier noted that while the viral footage widely circulated online was excluded for lack of authentication, the Gearhouse recordings provided sufficient clarity to establish the nature of the weapon and the act of discharging it.
Why Was the Viral Video Excluded from Evidence?
In her judgment, Magistrate Olivier addressed the contentious issue of the viral video that had circulated globally since 2018. As reported by Daily News, she stated that the footage could not be authenticated because the originator was not traced or called as a witness, rendering it inadmissible under evidentiary rules. However, she highlighted a contradiction in the defence’s approach: while they sought to exclude the viral video, they simultaneously relied on it during cross-examination to support their narrative.
“It begged the question as to why the defence relied on the footage during their cross-examination,”
Olivier remarked, underscoring the inconsistency. In contrast, the Gearhouse footage, though less visually clear, was authenticated and therefore admitted as real evidence. This distinction proved critical in the court’s assessment of the facts.
Who Laid the Charges and Why?
The criminal case against Malema was initiated not by the state, but by AfriForum, a civil rights organisation focused on community safety and accountability. As stated by Jacques Broodryk, AfriForum’s Chief Spokesperson for Community Safety, the organisation laid charges in August 2018 immediately following the rally.
“Without the organisation’s involvement, the case may never have seen the inside of a courtroom,”
Broodryk asserted in a statement published on AfriForum’s website. The group argued that Malema’s actions undermined the rule of law and set a dangerous precedent for political figures flouting firearm regulations with impunity. Their persistence over seven years, despite procedural delays and political pressure, was credited by legal analysts as instrumental in securing the prosecution.
What Did Malema Say in His Defence?
During the trial, Malema testified in his own defence, a decision that, according to Magistrate Olivier, did not benefit his case. As reported by Byron Pillay of Briefly News, when questioned about the number of shots fired, Malema first claimed 15, then later stated he could not recall because he “graduated in woodwork”. He further claimed that the cartridge found at the scene must have been placed there by the “Holy Spirit,” a statement that drew criticism from legal commentators. These remarks were cited by the magistrate as undermining his credibility and contributing to the guilty verdict. Malema maintained that the firearm was a toy and that no live rounds were discharged, but forensic analysis confirmed the presence of live ammunition and ballistic residue consistent with a real firearm.
What Happens Next in the Legal Process?
Sentencing has been postponed to 23 January 2026 to allow for the preparation of pre-sentencing reports, which will assess Malema’s personal circumstances and the appropriate penalty. He remains out on bail until that date. Under South African law, the charges carry a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment, though legal experts suggest the actual sentence may be mitigated by factors such as Malema’s political status, public role, and lack of prior convictions. Malema has already announced his intention to appeal the verdict, arguing that the trial was politically motivated and that the acquittal of his white bodyguard indicates racial bias in the judicial process. His legal team is expected to file appeal papers in the coming weeks.
How Have Political and Civil Groups Reacted?
AfriForum welcomed the verdict as a landmark moment for accountability.
“Justice has finally been served – despite years of delays and irregularities in this case,”
said Jacques Broodryk, who described the ruling as a victory for the principle that no one is above the law. In contrast, EFF supporters expressed outrage, with some burning Impepho sacred herbs and chanting outside the courthouse, as reported by Briefly News. The party has framed the conviction as part of a broader campaign to silence opposition voices, a narrative echoed by Malema himself in a post-verdict address to supporters. The Democratic Alliance DA also issued a statement, with spokesperson Solly Malatsi asserting that the judgment proves the EFF’s politics are rooted in violence and criminality.
This case marks a rare instance in which a high-profile political leader has been held criminally accountable for actions taken during a public rally, setting a precedent for future prosecutions under the Firearms Control Act.
