Julius Malema’s firearm trial judgment stretches into third day
When Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, walked into the East London Magistrate's Court on October 1, 2025 for the third straight day of his firearms discharge case, the nation’s political pulse quickened.
The hearing, overseen by Magistrate Twanet Olivier, has been a marathon of evidence‑recap, pushing the anticipated judgment well beyond the September 30 deadline. The stakes? A conviction could see Malema face a fine, possible imprisonment, and a bruising blow to the EFF’s street‑level credibility.
Background: The 2018 rally that sparked the controversy
On June 16, 2018, the EFF marked its fifth anniversary at Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane. Thousands of supporters gathered, chanting slogans and waving flags. According to eyewitnesses, shots rang out as Malema allegedly fired a gun in the air, a scene captured in grainy videos that later became courtroom exhibits.
The incident triggered a police investigation under the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000. Prosecutors allege that Malema violated Sections 58 and 59, which prohibit discharging a firearm in a public place and unlawful possession of ammunition. His former bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman, was charged with unlawful possession of the same weapon and related ammunition.
Trial developments: A three‑day judgment marathon
Day one saw Magistrate Olivier painstakingly read out each witness statement, from former rally organisers to forensic experts who examined muzzle‑flash photographs and ballistics reports. The prosecution leaned heavily on Exhibit Lab 282270‑18, a forensic analysis that claimed live‑round discharge.
Day two continued the same rhythm. The court considered retaken fingerprints, SAP 69 forms (A122 and A123), and a warning statement from witness Tolani Larry Mundla (exhibit A121) dated November 5, 2019, who chose to remain silent on key details.
“Yesterday and today dealt with summarising the entire case, including all the exhibits and that consumed two days. What is left is the evaluation and the findings. I cannot see that it will be more than two and a half hours,” Magistrate Olivier told the assembled press. Her confidence suggests the final decision could be rendered by the afternoon of October 2.
Malema has consistently argued that the weapon was a *toy gun*—a claim bolstered by his defence’s forensic consultant, who testified that no live ammunition residue was found on the barrel. “It was a replica, not a lethal firearm,” he insisted during cross‑examination.
Political reactions: Accusations of a targeted prosecution
The EFF’s reaction was swift and fiery. Party spokesman Floyd Shivambu labeled the case “a political witch‑hunt designed to silence dissent.” In a rally held the day after the third judgment day, supporters chanted, “Malema not guilty, the state is corrupt!”
Opposition parties, however, warned against turning the courtroom into a circus. Democratic Alliance leader John Steenhuisen remarked, “If the evidence shows a breach of the law, no one is above it—not even a political leader.”
Legal analysts note that the case could set a precedent for how political rallies are policed in South Africa. Professor Sipho Mthembu of the University of Cape Town observed, “A conviction would cement the principle that public figures must adhere to the same firearms regulations as ordinary citizens.”
Legal analysis: What the evidence really says
Forensic expert Dr. Lindiwe Mkhize explained that the muzzle‑flash analysis indicated a high‑energy discharge, typically consistent with live ammunition. Yet she also conceded that certain replica firearms can produce a comparable flash under specific conditions.
Ballistics specialist Prof. Alan Hayes compared the recovered casings with standard .22 calibre rounds, noting “partial match” but not a definitive correlation. This ambiguity fuels the defense’s toy‑gun narrative.
Another wrinkle: The prosecution’s key witness, rally‑attendee Nompumelelo Dlamini, later recanted her statement, saying she was pressured by fellow activists to claim she saw live fire. Her retraction was submitted as Exhibit A124 on September 28.
What’s next? Potential outcomes and broader implications
If Magistrate Olivier delivers a guilty verdict, Malema could face a fine of up to R 200,000 and up to five years imprisonment. An acquittal, on the other hand, would embolden the EFF, possibly fueling further mass mobilisations.
Beyond the personal stakes, the case may influence future legislative debates on public safety during political events. The National Assembly is slated to review amendments to the Firearms Control Act in early 2026, and this trial is likely to be cited in those discussions.
Regardless of the verdict, the courtroom saga has already reshaped public discourse about political accountability in South Africa. As the nation waits for the final judgment, both sides brace for the next round of political maneuvering.
- Trial began: June 2018 (incident) – October 2025 (judgment phase)
- Key charge: Discharging a firearm in public (Firearms Control Act Sec 58)
- Co‑accused: Adriaan Snyman – unlawful possession charge
- Potential penalty: Up to R 200,000 fine, 5 years jail
- Magistrate: Twanet Olivier – expected decision by Oct 2, 2025
Frequently Asked Questions
How could a conviction affect Julius Malema’s political career?
A conviction would likely trigger an internal EFF disciplinary process and could bar Malema from holding public office for a period, weakening the party’s electoral prospects. However, his base has historically rallied around perceived persecution, so he may retain grassroots support.
What evidence supports the claim that the gun was a toy?
Defence experts highlighted the absence of live‑round residue on the barrel and the lack of recovered ammunition. They also referenced photographs showing a barrel with a distinctive plastic grip, typical of replica firearms.
Why do EFF supporters view this trial as a political attack?
Many supporters point to the timing—just months before national elections—and the fact that other political leaders have faced less scrutiny for similar rally incidents. They argue the state is using the courts to neutralise a vocal opposition figure.
What does the outcome mean for firearms regulation in South Africa?
A guilty verdict could reinforce strict enforcement of the Firearms Control Act at public events, prompting organizers to implement tighter security. An acquittal may fuel calls to revise the law to differentiate between lethal and non‑lethal discharges.
When is the final judgment expected?
Magistrate Olivier hinted that the evaluation and findings would take no more than two and a half hours, suggesting a decision could be announced by the afternoon of October 2, 2025.
Ruben Vilas Boas
Looks like the court finally getting around to wrapping this up.