In a major legal blow to one of South Africa’s most prominent political figures, the East London Regional Court on Thursday sentenced Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema to five years of direct imprisonment for the unlawful discharge of a firearm.
The sentencing follows a protracted legal battle stemming from a 2018 incident at the EFF’s fifth-anniversary celebrations at Mdantsane stadium. The court previously found Malema guilty of firing an assault rifle into the air in front of thousands of supporters. Magistrate Twanet Olivier delivered the sentence in a packed courtroom, rejecting the defence's long-standing argument that the weapon used was merely a toy.
In addition to the five-year custodial sentence, Magistrate Olivier handed down a secondary two-year sentence, which she ordered to run concurrently. The EFF leader was also fined R60,000, with the alternative of six months’ imprisonment. Despite the severity of the sentence, the court confirmed that Malema is eligible to apply for bail pending his appeal of the verdict and sentence.
Magistrate Olivier remained firm during the proceedings, characterising the act as a reckless endangerment of the public. She noted that as a prominent legislator and political leader, Malema had a heightened responsibility to uphold the law. The Magistrate stated that the court needed to send a clear message that no individual, regardless of political stature, is above the law.
The political ramifications of the sentence are significant. Under Section 47 of the South African Constitution, any citizen sentenced to more than 12 months in prison without the option of a fine is disqualified from serving as a member of the National Assembly. If the sentence is upheld on appeal, Malema faces removal from Parliament.
EFF supporters gathered outside the court remained defiant, echoing Malema’s previous assertions that the case was politically motivated. Speaking shortly after the proceedings, Malema indicated his intent to fight the conviction. His legal team has argued that the state failed to prove the weapon was a real firearm, asserting that the judgment rests on circumstantial evidence.