- The court rejected arguments that the act was spontaneous
- Malema’s legal team had argued that the gunshots were meant as a form of celebration
- His lawyers have since signaled plans to challenge the ruling on appeal
A South African court has handed a five year prison sentence to opposition politician Julius Malema after finding him guilty of firing an assault rifle during a rally eight years ago.
Eko Hot Blog reports that the judgment was delivered on Thursday in a case that has drawn strong political reactions. Large numbers of supporters of the Economic Freedom Fighters gathered outside the courthouse, many dressed in the party’s signature red attire.
EDITOR’S PICK
- Interior Ministry Orders Immediate Deactivation of Passports for Former Citizens
- Iran Sets Conditions as US Warns Ahead of Talks
- 7 Things People Over 50 Should Do Every Morning for Better Health
Presiding magistrate Twanet Olivier ruled that Malema intentionally broke firearm laws when he discharged the weapon into the air at a 2018 rally. The court rejected arguments that the act was spontaneous, describing it instead as a deliberate highlight of the event.
Malema’s legal team had argued that the gunshots were meant as a form of celebration. Prosecutors, however, pushed for a harsher sentence of up to 15 years following his conviction in October.
His lawyers have since signaled plans to challenge the ruling on appeal.
The case has sparked political tension, with the EFF claiming it is an effort to suppress its outspoken leader, widely known for his strong rhetoric. Some supporters have also warned of protests in response to the sentence.
The magistrate emphasized that the ruling was against Malema as an individual and not directed at any political group.
The charges were brought by AfriForum, a conservative lobby group that has frequently clashed with Malema, particularly over his use of the controversial anti apartheid chant “Kill the Boer.”
While the group considers the chant inflammatory, South African courts have previously ruled that it does not constitute hate speech.
FURTHER READING
