GUILTY! Malema convicted on all firearm charges in 2018 EFF rally case
The gavel came down in the East London Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday as EFF leader Julius Malema was found guilty of unlawfully discharging a firearm.
Malema was convicted on all five charges including unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, discharging a firearm in a public area, reckless endangerment of persons or property, and failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger.
He and his former bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman, faced trial after video footage showed a rifle being handed to Malema.
Malema then fired shots into the air at the packed Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane in 2018.
It was the party’s fifth birthday rally.
Snyman was found not guilty of charges four and six. He was subsequently discharged.
The courtroom was full of EFF supporters as Malema and Snyman sat quietly in the dock, waiting for the verdict.
A flu-stricken magistrate Twanet Olivier convicted Malema on charges of illegal possession of firearms, contravening the Firearms Control Act, illegal possession of ammunition, and reckless endangerment.
“Accused one [Malema], in respect of counts one, two, three, four, and five you are found guilty as charged.
“Accused two [Snyman], in respect of counts four and six you are found not guilty and discharged.”
Snyman is the owner of a private security company providing services to the EFF at the time.
The charges were laid by lobby group AfriForum after the incident.
The state argued the actions endangered thousands of supporters, while the defence insisted the “toy gun” fired blanks and no witnesses could confirm live rounds were discharged.
From the outset, Malema and Snyman have pleaded not guilty to all charges.
They tried to have the charges dropped, saying there was not enough evidence.
But the application was dismissed.
Olivier said the viral video was not used to reach her decision.
“The only aspect to be determined is whether the rifle fired by Malema was a real firearm or not and the court is of the view that the viral footage is not needed to enable the court to arrive at a finding in this regard,” she said.
“As a side remark, it should be noted that the very same viral video footage was used by the defence to indicate certain factors that they wanted to place on record and in the same breath the court was asked to rule that the viral video footage is inadmissible on the basis that the originator of the said footage was not traced and called as a witness.
“Therefore, though the court ruled the said footage as real evidence, as it is relevant, it should be excluded as it was not authenticated.”
She said it begged the question as to why the defence relied on the footage during their cross-examination of the state witnesses to emphasise certain factors or facts.
She, however, said the footage taken by Gearhouse was admissible.
Gearhouse is the company that provided staging and audio-visual services for the rally.
It had its own cameras recording the event.
Because its footage could be traced back to the service provider and was properly authenticated, the court admitted it.
“I will admit and mention that the Gearhouse footage is not as visible as the viral footage.
“But in this regard, the Gearhouse footage is ruled as real evidence: it is relevant, it was authenticated and therefore it is ruled admissible.”
The matter was postponed to January 23 for pre-sentencing proceedings. Malema’s bail was extended until then.
More to follow.
IOL News