JOHANNESBURG, GAUTENG — The state has dismissed Julius Malema’s latest arguments in his firearms conviction appeal as “absurd,” setting the stage for a complex legal battle in the High Court. The EFF leader is seeking to overturn his five-year direct imprisonment sentence, which stems from a 2018 rally where he was filmed discharging a weapon. Legal experts note that the missing physical firearm and questions surrounding video evidence authentication will be central to his bid for success.
Malema was found guilty and sentenced to five years of direct imprisonment on five firearm-related charges. The charges originated from the EFF’s 2018 anniversary rally in Mdantsane, where the political leader was captured on video firing a rifle into the air. While the magistrate denied leave to appeal the conviction, it was granted for the sentence. Consequently, Malema’s legal team is now petitioning the High Court for direct permission to appeal the guilty verdict itself.
The prosecution has strongly pushed back, labeling the defense’s latest filings as absurd. According to court documents, Malema’s legal team has raised multiple grounds for the appeal. They argue there was a failure to prove a real firearm existed, improper reliance on video footage that they claim was not properly authenticated, and misdirection by the magistrate court regarding evidence inferences. Furthermore, the defense points to contradictions and a lack of proof in the state’s case, while also alleging prejudice. They claim the state effectively reshaped the case during the trial out of bias regarding Malema’s political status.
Dr. Shadi Maganoe, a senior lecturer at the Wits School of Law, provided analysis on the strict legal thresholds Malema must clear to convince the High Court that there is a reasonable prospect of success.
According to Dr. Maganoe, the defense’s primary strategy hinges on challenging the admissibility of the state’s evidence. Because the physical weapon was never recovered, the state has relied on spent cartridges and visual evidence. In criminal cases, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is exceptionally high. Dr. Maganoe noted that if the defense can successfully poke holes in the evidence by arguing it was not properly authenticated, it could raise Malema’s prospects of success. Furthermore, because the actual gun has not been located, the state’s inability to produce the physical firearm—or definitively prove it was not a toy gun loaded with blanks—could simplify the legal process in Malema’s favor.
The authenticity of digital evidence is another major focal point. Dr. Maganoe highlighted that appeal courts scrutinize unauthenticated social media video clips heavily. In criminal convictions, where the consequences are severe, relying on unauthenticated evidence risks infringing on the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
Additionally, the defense has pointed to discrepancies in the chain of custody regarding the spent cartridges found at the stadium. While Dr. Maganoe acknowledged that Malema has arguable legal points regarding the admissibility of this physical evidence, he cautioned that overturning a conviction is significantly more difficult than appealing a sentence. Appeal courts are highly reluctant to interfere with the factual findings of a lower court unless there is a clear misdirection.
Addressing the defense’s claim of political bias, Dr. Maganoe explained that Malema does not need to prove actual bias. Instead, he must demonstrate a “reasonable apprehension of bias,” arguing that his political status influenced how the charges were handled.
If the High Court ultimately refuses leave to appeal the conviction, that aspect of the case becomes final. Malema would then only proceed with the appeal against his sentence unless he chooses to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal, and potentially the apex court, following the standard hierarchy of the justice system.
