Julius Malema sentenced to direct imprisonment and fines
· Citizen
EFF president Julius Malema has been sentenced to 15 years in prison following his firearm discharge trial that spanned several years.
The ruling was delivered by Magistrate Twanet Olivier at the East London Regional Court in KuGompo City, Eastern Cape, on Thursday, 16 April 2026, after closing arguments were heard the previous day.
Visit bettingx.bond for more information.
The EFF leader was convicted on multiple charges, including the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a public place and reckless endangerment. The conviction stems from a video circulated online, recorded during the EFF’s fifth anniversary celebrations at the Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane on 28 July 2018, in which Malema is seen firing what appeared to be a rifle in front of thousands of supporters.
“In respect of count one, you are sentenced to a period of five years’ imprisonment. In respect of count two, you are sentenced to a period of two years’ imprisonment. In respect of count three, you are sentenced to R20 000 or to undergo six months’ imprisonment. In respect of count four, you are sentenced to R20 000 or to undergo six months imprisonment. In respect of count five, you are sentenced to pay a fine of R20 000 or to undergo six months’ imprisonment,” ruled Magistrate Twanet Olivier.
“In terms of section 280, subsection 2 of Act 51 of 1977, the court orders that the sentence imposed in respect of counts two, three, four and five run concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of count one.”
Malema was also declared unfit to possess a firearm.
His legal representatives expressed the intention to appeal the sentences. The matter was heard after sentencing proceedings.
‘Event planned, not accidental’
Handing down judgment, Magistrate Olivier said the shooting was premeditated rather than spontaneous.
“It is a grave concern to this court that an event was planned and that what appears to be the unique feature of the event ended up in the commission of an offence,” she said.
“It is clear that the planning included that the accused will possess or take possession of a semi-automatic rifle, fire a point a .223 Remington bullet into the air, thereby causing possible harm to person or property in a built-up area that is now called celebratory shots,” Olivier continued.
She rejected the characterisation of the incident as a harmless celebration, describing it as “sugarcoating”.
She said the plan included specific details about timing and location, and therefore, held Malema accountable for all five charges.
“That is the bottom line. Clearly, planning of this nature is in contrast with the law.
“How can a court consider that the actions of the accused did not entail the intention to commit the offence?
“It is not the thinking of the court; it is the acts before the court because that is what happened. It wasn’t, as the state correctly stated, an impulsive act.”
She added that any argument to the contrary would be “nonsensical”.
Watch the judgement below:
Strain on public resources
The magistrate also reflected on the “astronomical” implications of the lengthy trial, highlighting its burden on the “taxpayer’s pocket”.
“That’s not at the feet of the accused solely, not at all. It was your right to take this matter on trial. I’m saying a trial of this magnitude involves tremendous manpower,” she said.
Olivier highlighted that the case has led to so many ordinary citizens not having access to the court.
“Mothers could not reach the court for maintenance. Grandmothers could not apply for guardianship.
“Those people did not have access, and that is tragic. These are members of the community that the court serves on a daily basis.”
A political statement?
Addressing Malema’s political standing, Olivier stressed that the EFF leader was not singled out by the court, as “he has done so all by himself”.
She said the courts operate independently from politics.
“The two do not collide. The judiciary stays in its lane. The minds of jurists and the minds of a politician do not function on the same frequency at all; hence, the court is expected to remain independent.”
The magistrate further emphasised that the case concerned Malema as an individual, not the EFF as a political organisation.
“It is not a political party that has been convicted here, it is a person, an individual who so happens to be the CIC [commander-in-chief] of a political party,” she said.
“At all times, the judiciary, including the justice system, will never be intimidated by any politically charged utterances or parties.
“There is no room in a court of law, dealing with a criminal offence, to enter into politics.”
Olivier argued that Malema’s position or influence does not exempt him from accountability.
Malema’s political prominence
On Wednesday, Malema’s legal representatives, including Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi and Advocate Laurance Hodes, argued that the state had taken an inconsistent approach in emphasising his political prominence.
Hodes told the court that his status as a public figure must be treated consistently, either as a mitigating factor or an aggravating one.
“So you ask on the one hand to make an example of this accused because he is the current leader of a political party, then they tell you ‘no, there’s an imperative – you must make us all equal before the law’,” he said.
The defence maintained that no injuries or damage resulted from the incident, urging the court to weigh this aspect in determining an appropriate sentence.
They further contended that prosecutions of this nature are rare in South Africa.
“To send any person to prison for this single event would be shockingly inappropriate,” Hodes remarked.
During sentencing, Malema’s legal team argued for a non-custodial sentence and submitted a pre-sentencing report compiled by a private social worker.
Olivier acknowledged aspects of the defence’s argument, noting that the conduct sent an “inappropriate message” about firearm safety, particularly when displayed by a prominent public figure.
She also took into account that this was Malema’s first offence and highlighted that she further considered the impact on his employment and family.
“Loss of employment is an inevitable consequence of crime.”