EFF leader Julius Malema and his co-accused, Adriaan Snyman, will be back in the East London regional court today as their case draws to a close.
Malema is charged with the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a built-up area or public place, reckless endangerment of people and property and failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to people or property.
Snyman, the EFF leader’s bodyguard, is charged with failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to people or property, and providing a firearm or ammunition to someone not allowed to possess it.
The case arises from an incident in 2018 when Malema allegedly discharged a firearm during an EFF anniversary celebration at the Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane.
Both men pleaded not guilty to the charges in 2022 when the trial started.
On Monday their lawyers, advocates Laurance Hodes SC and Shane Matthews SC and senior state prosecutor advocate Joel Cesar will throw their final punches in closing arguments before magistrate Twanet Olivier.
Closing arguments were initially supposed to be made on November 1 but the presiding magistrate’s ill health led to a postponement to today.
When the state closed its case, after calling 19 witnesses last year, Malema and Snyman’s legal team made an application to discharge the case against them.
In their application, the duo argued the state had not been able to prove the charges.
The application was dismissed, paving the way for the defence to start its case.
Malema and Snyman also failed in their bid to have Olivier recuse herself in February 2023.
This was after she questioned a state witness, Samuel Kwata, about video footage, allegedly from the day in question, which triggered an outburst from Malema, who accused Olivier of prosecuting him and Snyman and called for her recusal.
In denying the recusal application, Olivier said she knew an accused was innocent until proven guilty, no matter what the charge sheet might allege, and no matter what witnesses said.
“This court is alive to process that is to be followed. The prosecution carries an onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the person it accuses.
“Whatever the position may be, it can never be reasonably suggested that because this court used its right to ask questions from witnesses with objective facts in mind, that it has trampled on the presumption of innocence.”
I believe he is not guilty. He’s done nothing wrong, and I don’t know why they are persecuting him.
— AbaThembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo
Malema took the stand in June and denied discharging a firearm with live ammunition.
“I never used a gun with live ammunition, and anything without ammunition is not a gun, on that day,” he testified.
Malema said he did not understand why the court wanted him to help the state make its own case.
“No state case has been made that demonstrates I carried that kind of a weapon.”
AbaThembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo was among the people who supported Malema in court.
Speaking outside court in September 2023, Dalindyebo said: “I believe he is not guilty. He’s done nothing wrong, and I don’t know why they are persecuting him.”
Regional NPA spokesperson Luxolo Tyali said the prosecuting authority was confident the court would find both accused guilty.
He said: “We prosecuted them based on the evidence we believe was overwhelming and we believe we were able to present [that] to the court.”
DispatchLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.