BEHIND THE NEWS | Covering Malema’s firearms trial was an exercise in resilience

On July 28 2018, when video footage of EFF leader Julius Malema discharging a rifle on stage at the Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane went viral, I was still wet behind the ears as a journalist.

I had the opportunity to cover criminal cases before then, but not one of this magnitude.

When I saw the video footage, recorded at a rally during the EFF’s fifth birthday celebrations, my immediate thought was, “What just happened?”

An uproar erupted on social media platforms, and for days on end it was a hot topic.

Malema appeared in court for the first time on November 27 2019.

At a later appearance, on March 29 2021, a trial date was set for August 27 that year.

The trial formally proceeded in the East London Regional Court on March 1 2022, with state prosecutor advocate Joel Cesar taking over the case from advocate Elna Smit.

For the duration of a four-year trial, the streets of East London, recently renamed KuGompo City, were painted red whenever Malema made an appearance.

Being a court reporter, I took it in my stride like any other case and reported what happened in court in detail.

The court became a familiar territory. The hustle and bustle of applying for permission to film proceedings and rushing into the small courtroom to find a suitable spot to sit and set up equipment became normal for journalists.

The state charged Malema with five counts — unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, unlawful discharge of a firearm, failure to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to a person or property and reckless endangerment of a person or property.

His bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman, who was later acquitted, was charged with failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent danger to a person or property and providing a firearm to a person not permitted to possess it.

Both men pleaded not guilty, and Malema maintained that the firearm he discharged was a toy gun, part of staged theatrics at the rally.

The state called 19 witnesses to prove its case, while Malema testified in his own defence, supported by a range of witnesses.

Postponement after postponement. Ballistics experts. Debates over the authenticity of the video footage.

Outside, the chants of the red berets in support of their leader. Inside, the slow grind of procedure.

Covering the protracted trial until last week, when Malema was sentenced, meant long days on hard benches, often in an overly warm courtroom when the air-conditioner was not working properly, or at all.

It also meant hurry up and wait, with proceedings rarely starting on time for a variety of reasons.

It got to a point, in September 2023, when Malema launched a tirade from the dock, accusing magistrate Twanet Olivier of being late.

Over the course of the trial, his defence team brought three applications — for the recusal of Olivier on the grounds of alleged bias, for the video evidence to be declared inadmissible and for a discharge of Malema and Snyman on the basis that the state had failed to prove its case.

As a court reporter, I could see the applications coming, though the outcomes were, in some instances, surprising.

After evidence presented by both the state and the defence, all three applications in respect of Malema were dismissed.

However, Snyman was discharged and acquitted in September 2023.

For the EFF leader, the trial continued.

He stuck to his version: the gun he fired was not a real firearm and he was innocent.

Olivier convicted Malema on all charges on October 1 2025.

During arguments ahead of sentencing, the state asked for the sentence to be meted out as prescribed, while his legal team argued for a non-custodial sentence.

On Thursday April 16, Olivier sentenced Malema to five years’ direct imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm, with the sentences for the other counts running concurrently.

They included two years for unlawful possession of ammunition and a R20,000 fine or six months’ imprisonment for unlawfully discharging the firearm and reckless endangerment.

He was also declared unfit to possess a firearm.

Olivier dismissed Malema’s application for leave to appeal in relation to the conviction but granted him leave to appeal against the sentence.

Malema, who intends to bring an appeal in the high court, has recourse all the way up to the Constitutional Court.

The consensus among legal experts is that the trial set a precedent.

Legal analyst Luzuko Tshingana said the case could become an important legal test as it moved through the appeal courts.

“It is a victory for the South African justice system because now, as the appeal is taken to the high court, it means the law will be tested,” he said.

My job wasn’t to weigh the validity of the toy-gun defence or judge the state’s call for a custodial sentence.

It was to sit through every update and break the news as it unfolded to ensure readers knew what was happening in the courtroom — be it another delay, more testimony or a verdict.

We file after the court speaks. Not before.