By Matik Kueth
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) president, Julius Malema, has been sentenced to five years in prison following a high-profile firearm discharge case that has stretched over several years.
The ruling was delivered on Thursday, April 16th, 2026, by Magistrate Twanet Olivier at the East London Regional Court in KuGompo City, Eastern Cape, after closing arguments concluded a day earlier.
Malema was convicted on multiple charges, including unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a public place, and reckless endangerment.
The charges stem from a viral video recorded during the EFF’s fifth anniversary celebrations at Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane on 28 July 2018, where he is seen firing what appeared to be a rifle before thousands of supporters.
“In respect of count one, you are sentenced to a period of five years’ imprisonment,” Magistrate Olivier ruled, adding that other sentences would run concurrently with the main custodial term.
The court also declared Malema unfit to possess a firearm.
His legal team immediately indicated that they intend to appeal the ruling in a higher court.
Event planned, not accidental
Delivering judgment, Magistrate Olivier rejected claims that the shooting was 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.
She further stated that “It is clear that the planning included that the accused would possess or take possession of a semi-automatic rifle,” describing the act as deliberate rather than impulsive.
The court dismissed attempts to frame the incident as harmless celebration, calling such arguments “sugarcoating.”
Strain on public resources
Magistrate Olivier also reflected on the broader impact of the lengthy proceedings, noting the strain on public services.
“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.
She warned that extended trials affected ordinary citizens, adding that “Mothers could not reach the court for maintenance. Grandmothers could not apply for guardianship.”
A political statement?
Addressing Malema’s political profile, Olivier stressed that the court was independent and impartial.
“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,’’ she stated.
She emphasized that “It is not a political party that has been convicted here, it is a person, an individual who so happens to be the CIC of a political party.”
Defense response
Malema’s lawyers, including Advocates Tembeka Ngcukaitobi and Laurance Hodes, argued that the court must apply consistency in weighing his public status.
Hodes told the court that sentencing him harshly would be “shockingly inappropriate,” especially given that no injuries or damage occurred.
However, the court ruled that his position actually increased responsibility, with Olivier noting that the conduct sent an “inappropriate message” about firearm safety.
She added, “Loss of employment is an inevitable consequence of crime.”
Malema is expected to appeal the ruling, setting the stage for another legal battle in a case that has already become one of South Africa’s most closely watched political trials.