The incident occurred on July 28, 2018, at Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane, a township in the Eastern Cape. The EFF, known for its fiery rhetoric and radical economic policies, was commemorating its fifth year of existence with a large gathering of supporters. During the event, a widely circulated video showed Malema, a polarizing figure in South African politics, being handed what appeared to be a rifle by his then-bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman. In the footage, Malema is seen pointing the weapon skyward and firing multiple shots, prompting cheers from the crowd. The dramatic display, however, quickly sparked controversy, with critics arguing that it was reckless and illegal under South Africa’s strict firearm laws.
The Firearms Control Act of 2000, which governs the possession and use of firearms in South Africa, prohibits discharging a weapon in a public place unless under specific circumstances, such as self-defense or authorized activities. The viral video, which spread rapidly across social media and news outlets, prompted law enforcement to investigate. Malema and Snyman were subsequently charged with contravening the Act, with additional charges leveled against Snyman for the unlawful provision of the firearm and possession of ammunition.
Throughout the trial, Malema’s defense team maintained that the firearm in question was not a real weapon but rather a toy or replica used as a theatrical prop to enhance the celebratory atmosphere of the rally. They argued that the act was a symbolic gesture, consistent with the EFF’s bold and performative style, and posed no real danger to the public. However, the prosecution countered this claim with a robust case, presenting visual evidence from the video footage and corroborating testimonies from multiple witnesses who were present at the event. These witnesses, including law enforcement officials and attendees, provided consistent accounts that the firearm appeared genuine and that its discharge was audible and visible.
Magistrate Twanet Olivier, in delivering her judgment, emphasized the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. She noted that the video footage clearly depicted Malema handling and firing the weapon, leaving little room for doubt about the nature of the act. The court also found the testimonies of state witnesses to be credible and free from bias, further bolstering the prosecution’s case. Olivier explicitly rejected the defense’s claim that the firearm was a toy, pointing out that the visual and auditory evidence, combined with expert analysis, confirmed it was a functioning firearm capable of discharging live ammunition. The magistrate’s ruling underscored the judiciary’s commitment to upholding South Africa’s firearm regulations, particularly in light of the country’s high rates of gun violence and the need to maintain public safety.
In addition to Malema, his former bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman, was also found guilty on related charges. Snyman faced accusations of unlawfully providing the firearm to Malema and possessing both the weapon and ammunition without proper authorization. The court’s decision to convict both individuals highlights the shared responsibility in the incident, as Snyman’s role in handing the weapon to Malema was deemed a critical factor in the violation of the Firearms Control Act.
The case has drawn significant attention both within South Africa and beyond, given Malema’s prominence as a political figure. As the leader of the EFF, a party that positions itself as a champion of the marginalized and a fierce critic of the ruling African National Congress (ANC), Malema has cultivated a reputation for his confrontational style and unapologetic rhetoric. His supporters view him as a revolutionary leader fighting for economic justice, while his detractors accuse him of promoting division and reckless behavior. The conviction is likely to fuel debates about Malema’s leadership and the EFF’s approach to public demonstrations, with critics arguing that the incident reflects a disregard for legal and safety norms.
The trial itself was a drawn-out process, spanning several years and marked by intense public scrutiny. The high-profile nature of the case, coupled with the widespread dissemination of the video footage, ensured that it remained a focal point of national discourse. Legal analysts have noted that the conviction sends a strong message about accountability, particularly for public figures whose actions carry significant influence. The court’s rejection of the defense’s toy gun argument also reinforces the importance of evidence-based rulings in cases involving firearm violations.
Sentencing for Malema and Snyman is expected to be announced in the coming weeks, with potential penalties including fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the severity of the offense as determined by the court. The Firearms Control Act provides for a range of punishments, with a maximum sentence of up to seven years for certain offenses, though mitigating factors such as Malema’s lack of prior convictions could influence the outcome. The sentencing phase is likely to attract further attention, as it will determine the tangible consequences for Malema and Snyman and could impact the EFF’s political strategy moving forward.
For Malema, the conviction represents a significant setback, though his political resilience suggests he may frame it as part of his broader narrative of being targeted by the establishment. The EFF has previously faced legal and political challenges, including disputes over parliamentary conduct and allegations of corruption, yet it has maintained a loyal base of supporters. How Malema navigates the fallout from this conviction will be critical, particularly as South Africa approaches future elections where the EFF seeks to expand its influence.
The broader implications of the case extend beyond Malema and the EFF. South Africa’s firearm laws were enacted to address the country’s persistent issues with gun violence, which remains a major public safety concern. High-profile incidents like this one risk normalizing the public display of firearms, potentially undermining efforts to promote stricter enforcement. The court’s ruling serves as a reminder that no individual, regardless of their status, is above the law.
As the nation awaits the sentencing, the case continues to spark discussions about the intersection of politics, law, and public safety. For Malema’s supporters, the conviction may be seen as an attempt to silence a vocal critic of the government, while others view it as a necessary step toward accountability. Regardless of one’s perspective, the outcome of this case will likely resonate in South Africa’s political landscape for years to come, shaping perceptions of the EFF and its leader’s controversial yet influential role in the country’s future.
