Julius Malema. (Photo: Elisma van der Watt/ Maroela Media)
Julius Malema’s legal team believes he should be fined rather than jailed, while the state argues it will set a dangerous precedent if he is not sentenced to prison.
This is what Malema’s legal team argued in the Magistrate’s Court in KuGompo City (formerly East London) on Wednesday. The defense and the state closed their case in the firearms case against the EFF leader.
Magistrate Twanette Olivier indicated that she was more than prepared to deliver a verdict on Thursday.
Joel Cesar, chief prosecutor, argued during his closing arguments that Malema’s actions “posed an extreme danger” for the more than 20,000 people at the rally in Mdantsane. He says it was “by God’s grace that no one was hurt”.
Cesar has art. 9 was read out to the defense and emphasized that the Constitution obliges the court to ensure that no person is above the law.
He argues that Malema has set a dangerous precedent and that young people will follow in his footsteps.
Cesar also warned the court that a non-custodial sentence sends a dangerous message to the public.
“It will effectively tell people that it’s okay to fire shots, regardless of whether it’s one, two or 22 shots. You only get a fine.”
Also read: Malema | Chanting outside court
EFF supporters chanted “Kill the boer, Kill the farmer” in front of the magistrate’s court in KuGompo city (formerly East London) on Wednesday, where their leader, Julius Malema, is expected to be sentenced soon. (Photo: Elisma van der Watt/ Maroela Media)
The cases he cited in his closing arguments all resulted in direct imprisonment. He asked that the court should impose a consistent, standardized sentence for these types of offences.
“The weapon Malema used was an assault rifle, not a handgun, with larger, more powerful ammunition that could have caused great damage.”
Malema still maintains that the firearm was a toy, despite ballistic evidence proving the contrary.
However, Malema’s legal team believes it would be unfair to send Malema to prison.
A screenshot from the video showing EFF leader Julius Malema in Mdantsane in the Eastern Cape apparently opening fire with an assault rifle. (Archive Photo/ Screenshot)
Adv. Laurence Hodes SC, on behalf of Malema, presented a series of reasons to the court as to why Malema should instead be fined.
“What we are arguing is that we have illustrated that mere possession does not always mean that someone is locked up. Each case must be evaluated based on its facts and the facts of this case are indeed unique,” Hodes argued.
He emphasized that the five charges against Malema stem from a single incident which apparently did not even last more than two minutes.
“Again there were no injuries or any damage to property,” Hodes told the court.
Hodes also referred to Jessie Thompson, a social worker from Johannesburg, who testified in mitigation for Malema.
Also read: Malema | Sentencing begins Wednesday
Malema shows the toy firearm to the court. (Archive photo: EFF/X)
He indicated that although Malema strongly denies the charges against him, he believed he told Thompson that he recognized that firing a firearm in a public environment is illegal and that he realizes that his actions set an example that could encourage others to fire a firearm recklessly.
Hodes emphasized that Malema obtained the gun from someone who is probably affiliated with security services, which means that it was a licensed firearm.
Malema during Wednesday’s court proceedings. (Photo: Elisma van der Watt/Maroela Media)
“Malema only borrowed it for the occasion of celebration, only had it in his possession for the duration of the shots – estimated to be less than two minutes – and returned it to the owner immediately afterwards.”
Hodes further said that Malema did not obtain the firearm illegally or with any intention of committing further crimes.
He asked the court to look at Malema as an ordinary accused, but then also later asked that the court take into account his position as a political leader.
According to Hodes, the state relies on public outrage in civil society to advocate imprisonment. He says this contradicts the state’s claim that Malema should be treated like other accused persons.
He further said that the state specifically referred to cases involving either a minimum sentence or extreme aggravating circumstances – such as robbery, violent crime, obliterated serial numbers and multiple firearms – and tried to apply the same reasoning to a case that was “actually much less serious”.
“The defense argues that that approach is wrong.”
The sentencing proceedings are expected to be concluded on Thursday.
Malema’s wife, Mantwa Matlala Malema, (centre) also attended Wednesday’s proceedings. (Photo: Elisma van der Watt/Maroela Media)