When Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), was found guilty of reckless endangerment for discharging a rifle at a public rally, South Africans suddenly had a concrete legal test of the country’s gun‑control regime.
The judgment was delivered on by Magistrate Twanet Olivier at the East London Magistrate's Court in the Eastern Cape. The case stems from an altercation during the EFF’s fifth‑anniversary celebration at Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane back in 2018.
Background: The 2018 rally that sparked a legal saga
On 2 September 2018, tens of thousands gathered at the stadium to mark the EFF’s anniversary. According to eyewitnesses, a burst of muzzle flash illuminated the night as a rifle was fired from the stage. Video clips that went viral showed a figure – later identified as Malema – pulling the trigger, the recoil sending the weapon’s barrel tumbling forward. The incident ignited a national debate about political violence and the party’s relationship with private security contractors.
Two men were subsequently arrested: Malema himself and his former bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman. Both were charged under the Firearms Control Act for unlawful possession and discharge of a firearm. Snyman faced additional counts for possessing ammunition without a licence.
Trial proceedings: A marathon of testimony
The East London hearing stretched over several days, with Magistrate Olivier describing the process as a “marathon recap of testimonies.” State witnesses – including a forensic firearms expert and several rally attendees – painted a picture of a live round being fired in a densely packed crowd. The defence argued that the viral video could not be admitted because its chain of custody was unverified, a point the court ultimately accepted.
During cross‑examination, Malema appeared evasive. The magistrate noted, “Mr. Malema evaded many questions that warranted a reply. The replies were entertaining, but the pertinent questions remained unanswered.” In contrast, Snyman’s testimony was straightforward, and he was acquitted of all charges.
Political reactions: From DA to the EFF
Democratic Alliance MP Ian Cameron welcomed the verdict, saying, “Julius Malema was found guilty of recklessly firing a gun, exposing the violent culture of the EFF. Firearm laws must apply equally, and no leader can flout the law with impunity.” Cameron, speaking on behalf of the Democratic Alliance, highlighted the video’s forensic analysis that showed a live weapon’s recoil and muzzle flash.
Malema, however, doubled down on his political narrative. In a brief statement after the judgment, he claimed the case was “politically and racially charged,” vowing to appeal “all the way to the Constitutional Court.” He added, “The strategy has always been you must try to judge Malema with everything. One day maybe we'll find a racist judge who will find him guilty whether he committed the offense or not.”
Potential consequences: Prison time and political fallout
If sentenced to more than 12 months, Malema could face a ban on holding certain public offices, a development that could reshape the EFF’s leadership dynamics ahead of the 2026 municipal elections. Legal analysts point out that South African courts have previously imposed custodial sentences for similar firearms offences, citing a 2022 case where a provincial politician received an 18‑month term for unlawful possession.
Pre‑sentencing hearings are slated for . The court will consider factors such as Malema’s prior convictions, the public nature of the offence, and the potential deterrent effect of a custodial term.
Key facts
- Conviction date: 1 October 2025
- Charge: Reckless endangerment under the Firearms Control Act
- Location of offence: Sisa Dukashe Stadium, Mdantsane (2018)
- Co‑accused outcome: Adriaan Snyman acquitted
- Potential sentence: >12 months could affect parliamentary eligibility
What’s next? The road to appeal
Malema’s legal team has already filed a notice of appeal, arguing procedural irregularities and the exclusion of the viral video as evidence. The appeal will first go to the Eastern Cape High Court; if that fails, the Constitutional Court could be the final stop. The DA has signalled it will monitor the appeal closely, framing it as a test of South Africa’s rule of law.
Meanwhile, the EFF’s internal structures are under pressure. Party elders are reportedly weighing whether to keep Malema at the helm or to appoint an interim leader should a conviction lead to a suspension. The outcome will likely reverberate across the nation’s opposition landscape.
Frequently Asked Questions
How could the conviction affect Julius Malema’s political career?
If the court imposes a custodial sentence longer than 12 months, South African law could bar Malema from holding certain public offices, including a seat in Parliament. This would force the EFF to choose a new parliamentary leader and could diminish its influence ahead of the 2026 municipal elections.
Why was the viral video not admitted as evidence?
The magistrate ruled the video’s chain of custody could not be reliably established. Without verification of its origin, the court could not guarantee it was unaltered, which is a prerequisite for admissibility under South African evidence law.
What does the Firearms Control Act prohibit?
The Act bans the unlawful possession, use, and discharge of firearms. It also requires licences for all firearms and ammunition. Violations can result in fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the severity and circumstances of the offence.
Who else was charged in the 2018 rally case?
In addition to Malema, his former bodyguard Adriaan Snyman faced charges of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. Snyman was acquitted of all counts after the court found insufficient evidence linking him directly to the discharge.
What are the next legal steps after the conviction?
Pre‑sentencing hearings are set for 23 January 2026, where the magistrate will decide on a possible custodial term. Malema’s team will file an appeal to the Eastern Cape High Court, and if that fails, they may take the case to the Constitutional Court.
Comments
Congrats to the legal system for finally taking action! 🚀
The conviction sends a clear signal that no political figure should be above the law. It also highlights the importance of consistent gun‑control enforcement. Hopefully this will deter future reckless behavior at public gatherings.