Doubt has been cast in East London’s regional court on whether a spent cartridge found by a cleaner at the Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane could have come from a firearm allegedly fired by EFF leader Julius Malema during the party’s fifth anniversary in 2018.
Malema and his bodyguard Adriaan Snyman were back in court on Tuesday facing charges of discharging a firearm in public.
They have pleaded not guilty to firearms charges.
Magistrate Twanette Olivier heard from forensic ballistic expert JC de Klerk that the cartridge found tested negative.
Laurance Hodes SC, for Malema, argued the authenticity of the viral footage which landed the pair in the dock had not been established.
The court heard the cartridge was found at the stadium two days after the anniversary celebrations.
De Klerk, who has 40 years’ experience as a ballistics expert, told the court that according to his findings, there were indications of similarities when he set up a TV and presented the comparison gun and a real automatic rifle.
“The examination of the striations indicated similarities. Some striations were also of different size and depth.
VIP protection police officers protecting Julius Malema on the day did not mention the discharge of a firearm in their statements
— Forensic ballistic expert JC de Klerk
“It appears to be the same, but on close inspection slight differences are visible,” he said.
De Klerk told the court during his examination, striations were similar but at a different angle.
“By comparing the marks found, it is very important for marks to be considered as possible subclass characteristics which should first be eliminated before individual characteristics.
“All examinations consider world standards and protocols.
“It is important to consider all aspects from class, subclass and individual characteristics when comparing evidence from the same source identification.”
De Klerk said no-one had complained they feared they were in danger of being struck by a bullet, and no-one ran for cover.
Additionally, VIP protection police officers protecting Malema on the day did not mention the discharge of a firearm in their statements.
“Were a firearm fired, I would have expected police to intervene and take the firearm.”
Judging by the distance from where the firearm was fired and where the cartridge was found, De Klerk said it would have been impossible for the cartridge to have come from the firearm.
“There are two possibilities. One, it was moved and dropped inside the tent.
“Second, when the stage was broken up it could have been kicked to the point where it was found.”
Martin Hood, who took part in the consultative process of the drafting and enactment of the Firearm Control Act, described it as broad and vague and said it should not be interpreted out of context.
The interpretation of the act in the charge sheet was “not reasonable” as he had never seen it applied to someone with a security company.
He said Snyman was well within his rights, as the owner of a security company and a firearm licence holder, to hand a gun to Malema, as long as it was operated under supervision.
He had never been declared unfit to own a firearm, and he held a competence certificate to be in possession of a firearm.
“Possession is not defined by the act. The section is not that simple.
“Mr Malema is not disqualified from possessing the firearm, according to the act, and that was not an offence,” Hood said.
The case was postponed to Wednesday.
TimesLIVE
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.