Read more
‘This is clearly a lie’: State highlights Malema’s contradictions in firearm discharge trial
The EFF leader is charged with five counts, including the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition.
EFF leader Julius Malema and his co-accused Adriaan Snyman appear at the East London Regional Court. Picture: Gallo Images / Lulama Zenzile
The testimony of Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema in his firearm discharge case was riddled with contradictions, according to the state.
Closing arguments were presented on Monday in the East London Regional Court, where Malema and his former bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman, face charges related to the alleged discharge of a firearm.
The case stems from a viral video showing Malema firing what appeared to be a rifle in front of a large crowd during the EFF’s fifth-anniversary celebrations at the Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane, Eastern Cape, on 28 July 2018.
Snyman is accused of handing Malema the firearm, allegedly owned by the security company Snyman once operated.
Malema is charged with five counts, including the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a public space, and reckless endangerment to a person or property.
Snyman faces two charges under the Firearms Control Act.
State’s closing argument in Malema firearm discharge case
During proceedings, state prosecutor Joel Cesar emphasised the testimony of forensic ballistics analyst Lieutenant-Colonel Mandisi Mgwadleka, who linked a cartridge found at the stadium to the firearm allegedly discharged by Malema.
“The evidence of Mr Mgwadleka was thoroughly tested by the defence, and it is my submission that it remains unshaken and consistent,” he said.
The prosecutor highlighted contradictions in Malema’s testimony, including his assertion that the case was politically motivated by AfriForum.
He argued that it was retired police officer Colonel Ngamlana Nkwali who opened the docket after being shown the video.
ALSO READ: Malema maintains innocence in firearm discharge case
Rejecting Malema’s claim that Snyman was charged only to pressure him into becoming a state witness, Cesar stated: “That concession is not true. We don’t charge people in the hope that one would turn against the other one, that’s not how we conduct our business.”
The state advocate also noted that Malema had owned a firearm since the age of 19.
Although Malema’s competency certificate expired in 2016, Cesar reminded the court that he held a license for a 9mm handgun.
“He was untruthful about knowing what a 9mm handgun looked like when questioned [about] what type of firearm he fired in the video during the incident. His evidence in this regard cannot be true as he owns a 9mm Taurus handgun and received training,” the prosecutor continued.
Watch the case below:
Malema’s testimony ‘evasive’
Cesar accused Malema of being evasive when questioned about the number of shots fired during the incident.
“It was clear that he was evasive and prepared to adapt his evidence as he anticipated the state’s cross-examination of this issue.”
The prosecutor further said the EFF was untruthful about knowing in which capacity Snyman attended the event and stated that he had no knowledge of why he was there during the incident.
READ MORE: Malema sticks to his guns, maintains he’s being wrongly prosecuted
“This is clearly a lie and contradicts his evidence regarding how and under what circumstances he met the accused in 2008 at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.”
Cesar dismissed Malema’s claim that the firearm was a toy or used blank ammunition.
“A blank firearm, according to both ballistic experts, cannot shoot and fire real ammunition and cannot produce spent cartridge cases,” he said.
Defence questions video evidence
Cesar acknowledged that the video evidence does not clearly show Snyman handing the firearm to Malema.
“I will concede that that is not clear. As an officer of this court, my job is not to secure a conviction at all costs; my job is to assist the court to come to a correct decision.”
Advocate Laurens Hodes, representing Malema, argued that the charge sheet had been “reverse-engineered” to align with the evidence presented.
READ MORE: ‘No eyewitness, no fingerprints’: Malema’s lawyer insists state’s case has ‘deficiencies’
Hodes also questioned the authenticity of the viral video, pointing out that the second video, retrieved from Gear House—the company that set up equipment and recorded the event—originated from a stolen laptop.
“So the original [footage] is missing,” Hodes said.
He further noted that no attendees at the event had complained about being endangered by gunfire.
“In fact, not one attendee from the many people that attended the celebrations was called to testify as an eyewitness,” Hodes emphasised.
Recusal, Section 174 applications
Malema had previously applied for Magistrate Twanet Olivier’s recusal from the case, citing concerns about her impartiality.
However, his application, which the state opposed, was dismissed in February 2023.
In addition, both Malema and Snyman, sought to have the charges against them dropped, claiming insufficient evidence.
This application was also rejected by Olivier, allowing the case to proceed.
For more news your way
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
