ITS NOT JELLY BABIES, ITS JUST JULLIUS MALEMA: A DIVE INTO THE UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM JUDGEMENT.

Weeee Oe, Uyashisa umdoko. The block is hot as they would say emalokshini waseMelica. This here writing is one of those which has everything we like, well let me speak for myself, everything i like- A mazza, firing of semi-automatic firearms and an ignorant intelligent brazo. Therfore it was an easy write for me write. "Ohhhhh man, ohhhh man, i love you Juju"- the bag was deep from Zake Batwini and Black Coffee on that record.

You remember my trifecta of shit i like- "a mazza; firing of semi-automatic firearms and a ignorant intelligent brazo". The "Ignorant intelligent brazo in this is Mr Malema, the chief and commander of the EFF. "Chief and Commander"- are we in guerrela warfare time? Maby we are, the landscape in reality is weird right now, you can never tell whats really happening, so let me refrain from making sly remarks, because i really dont know shit.

In this writing we delving into the judgment and recent sentencing proceeding(non sentencing proceeding) of Julius Malema over his unlawful discharge of a semi-automatic firearm at some Mazza at a Shindig somewher by the East of the Cape . Now since its a Magistrate court judgment, there isnt a written judgment on it, (Saflii- you gotta sort out that access to magistrate court judgment, atleast regional court- I see job opportunities there, wink* wink*).

As we have always done in our dives, we are gonna take this delve using our FILAC methodoly, dawg where would i be without FILAC. Using information available in the public domain, we will extrapolate facts and issues, then we will look into the laws applicable, use informed assumption on how the court applied the law to the facts and finally, what the final judgment is and briefly look at where the matter is now.

Juju Malema just go his sentencing postponed to 15 April 2026 now, and from his media statement we can decipher that dude intends on appealing to all courts of the land as this "FIGHT IS NOT AGAINST THE CASE, IT IS AGAINST RACISM"- thats how he talks, in capital letters. But yah, lets get to to. The facts

1. THE FACTS: NGIQELA UKUBONA eBEER PHEZULU

   The vibes are up, as i would recently like to say, it is a mazza. Olova are in the cut, the babes are in the cut, everyone wearing red like its a blood set cookout. Then all of sudden, it happens. In zulu they say "ubumnandi kuladelwa ukukhala" - that is one of those African proverbs that warns one from being too excited otherwise some shit is set to hit the fan. Basically saying "Regulate brazo". Now On 28 July 2018, during the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) 5th-anniversary celebrations at Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane, Mr Malema (aka Acchuse #1) was filmed discharging what appeared to be a rifle into the air, from my perspective, dude was holding some steel work. J Malema let lead loose, in a stadium full people. I guess fuck the bullet coming back down and tapping someone in the cranium. Fuck gravity right.

   
   

   On 30 July 2018, municipal cleaners discovered a spent .223 Remington cartridge on the stadium grounds near where the stage had been located. Forensic investigators later matched this cartridge to a Norinko rifle (Serial No. CN SBA249-14) belonging to Tactical Security Services, a company directed by Mr Snyman (Acchuse #2). Juju Malema argued throughout the trial that the device was a "toy gun" or a theatrical prop incapable of firing live ammunition. His argument was fundamentally that the gun was fake and or alternatively, it was a gun but it fired blank( Atleast thats how i understood the facts).

   
   

   That happened, the video got out and it blew up socials and someone had to make some noise. Boom Afriforum steps in and was like, "nwee nwee nwee, hy personlike maak jail getrek"- in english that translates as "nwe nwee, that person must go to jail". Yes thats 36% in Afrikaans right there.

   The legal battle begins, charges brought, pleads entered. Malema caught a couple of charges on his door steps including Unlawful possession of a firearm, Unlawful possession of ammunition, and Discharging a firearm in a built-up area(Type of charge that have your mother crying) . Even while caught in ultra 8k resolution with the panasonic view, Malema pleaded "Not Guilty" to all charges. You know that Rick Ross meme- "False Accusation, False Accusation"- that was the boy. S/o Malema, stood ten toes, on business.

   
   

   The trial began, delays happened, postponement where drawn like Yugi Yo cards, interlocutory application summoned like pokemons- The Stalingard Tactic at its finest, because the trial lasted for 7 years until finally a judgment was delivered.

THE ISSUE: IZINKINGA MADODA

From the jump i just want to point out that the issue as it pertains to Accuse Number, we wont delve into. Dude beat the rep because the state could not prove beyound a reasonable doubt that acchuse number 2 supplied the metal. That could be different writing completely because i think its interesting that the Dude who is alledged to have enabled the crime got away scott free, with no ink on his sheet.

The court dealt with several core issues as it pertains to the charges levied against Julius Malema:

• Whether the device discharged by Mr Malema was a "firearm" as defined by the Firearms Control Act or merely a prop:

The most fundamental factual issue was whether the object discharged by Malema was a "firearm" as defined by the Act or merely a "toy gun" or theatrical prop. Malema argued the device was a prop incapable of firing live ammunition. The court had to determine if the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that the device was an actual semi-automatic rifle

• Whether Mr Malema's brief possession of the device and ammunition constituted a criminal offense:

The court had to interpret Section 3 of the Firearms Control Act regarding the unlawful possession of a firearm. A key legal question was whether Malema’s very brief handling of the weapon—estimated by the social worker’s report to be less than one minute—met the legal threshold for "possession"

• Whether the discharge of the weapon in a stadium packed with approximately 20,000 people constituted reckless endangerment:

The court dealt with whether Malema’s actions constituted "reckless endangerment" or a "failure to take reasonable precautions" under Section 120(3). The legal issue was whether firing into the air in a stadium containing approximately 20,000 people created a "risk to the safety or property of the general public," even if no actual injuries were reported

• Admissibility and Authenticity of Digital Evidence:

The court faced a significant evidentiary challenge regarding video footage. The defense argued that "viral" social media footage was inadmissible because the original source could not be traced or authenticated. The court had to decide if this footage was admissible as authentic evidence by comparing it to independent, professional footage provided by the events company, Gearhouse

• Application for Discharge under Section 174

Following the close of the State’s case, the court had to rule on a Section 174 application brought by the defense. The legal issue was whether the prosecution had presented a prima facie case sufficient to require the accused to mount a defense, or if the evidence was so poor that no reasonable court could convict

THE APPLICABLE LAW

The court considered the following statutory provisions:

• Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000: Section 3 (unlawful possession of a firearm), Section 90 (unlawful possession of ammunition), Section 120(7) (discharge in a built-up area), and Section 120(3) (reckless endangerment).

• Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977: Section 174 (application for discharge) and Section 250 (presumption of lack of authority).

• The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996: Regarding the eligibility of Members of Parliament following criminal convictions

THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS:

Application of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000

• The "Toy Gun" Defense: The court rejected Malema’s argument that he used a theatrical prop. It applied ballistic evidence matching a spent cartridge found at the stadium to a Norinko rifle belonging to the security company. Ballistic experts testified that the spent cartridge found at the scene matched the Norinko rifle provided by Mr Snyman's company.

• Unlawful Possession (Sections 3 & 90): By linking the physical firearm to the scene and noting Malema had no license for it, the court found him guilty of possessing both the rifle and ammunition. Although Mr Malema held the weapon for less than one minute, the law does not provide a minimum time threshold for "possession

• Reckless Endangerment (Section 120): The court ruled that firing a rifle in a stadium with 20,000 people and no safety precautions constituted reckless endangerment, regardless of his intent or the fact that no one was injured. Basically finding that firing into the air in a condensed community presented a significant risk of harm, even if no injuries occurred.

• Discharge in a Built-up Area: Firing at Sisa Dukashe Stadium was deemed a discharge in a public place without "good reason," satisfying the requirements for a guilty verdict on Count 3

Application of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

• Section 174 Discharge Application: At the close of the State's case, the defense applied for a discharge, arguing there was no case to answer. The court dismissed this, ruling the state had provided sufficient evidence to require Malema to mount a defense.

As per various reports from various media houses, after state lead its case, court denied the discharg application, defence lead it case, there was headline that said "judge (should have been magistrate) continues painstaking details". I guess that means the magistrate, went into detail in the evaluation of the evidence and finally delivered the following judgement.

THE JUDGMENT, THE VERDICT:

Accused 1 (Julius Malema):

• Count 1: Unlawful possession of a firearm — GUILTY.

• Count 2: Unlawful possession of ammunition — GUILTY.

• Count 3: Discharge of a firearm in a built-up area — GUILTY.

• Count 4: Failure to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger — GUILTY.

• Count 5: Reckless endangerment to person or property — GUILTY.

The matter got adjourned to 23 January 2026 for pre-sentencing proceedings. 23 January 2026 hit and again the matter got postponed to 15 April 2026.

Its essential i mention that some of these charges that Malema found himself being convicted of carry with them a minimum sentence 15 years, 15 years!!!!.

As the man pointed out in his media briefing, this shandis is not a fight aginst the case, its a fight against racism. Just from the Legal team he has, he had already made that statement, that we here until the wheels fall off. For purposes of enlightenment, i will be brief on this point. As we forshadow that Malema will appeal, the following is the brief description of the Appeal Arena that awaits to be open within this legal battle:

1. Leave to Appeal: An appeal is essentially the challenge to the conclusion of Magistrate based on facts or law. The appellant is basically saying the conclusion reached was wrong based on how the Magistrate interpreted the law or the facts.

The first requirement is obtaining "leave to appeal" from the trial court.

• The Application: The accused must apply to the Magistrate who presided over the trial for permission to appeal, within 14 days after the sentence is passed. The application must clearly and specifically outline the grounds upon which accused seeks the appeal. Some of grounds could relate to the whether the device was a "Firearm" since they argue it was a toy gun; the admissibility of evidence given their disagreement to the admissibility of viral social media video. Just as a side note, Review could be a possibility if that "RACIST" allegation levelled against the Magistrate are actually concrete believe wherein a bias can be pointed out during the trial proceedings. In between the outlining of those ground, applicant has to show the court the appeal has a prospect of success as the leave is granted wherein the Magistrate believes the appeal has a reasonable prospect of hitting or there are other compelling reasoning for it to be heard.

Say the Magistrate, does not it succeeding. As in there is a video wherein the applicant was caught in ultra 4k, oled, resolution letting some metal hot fire loose in a stadium full of people without holding a license and without exercising the required caution by bringing themselve to the acknowledgement that a bullet shot up, as per the laws of gravity, is set to come down. And its only prayer that can stop it from coming down on top of someone's pineal gland.

2. Petitioning the High Court

If the Magistrate refuses the application for leave to appeal, the accused is not necessarily at a dead end:

• Petition Procedure: The accused may apply by petition to the Judge President of the relevant High Court to grant leave. This application must be done within 21 days after the Magistrate refused the leave to appeal.

3. Prosecuting the Appeal

Once leave is granted, the appeal must be "prosecuted" according to the rules of the court.

• The Record: The registrar or clerk of the Magistrate's court prepares a copy of the case record, and the presiding Magistrate must provide a written statement of the facts found proved and the reasons for the judgment.

• Responsibility: The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the record and all necessary exhibits are properly before the High Court rests with the appellant's legal team.

• Written Argument: Both the appellant and the Director of Public Prosecutions must deliver written arguments (heads of argument) within time periods prescribed by the registrar.

4. Impact on the Sentence

In Malema's case, noting an appeal would typically suspend the execution of a custodial sentence until the appeal is determined. And fortunately for Malema, he was granted bail, and said bail is set to continue to stand even when the battle goes to the appeal arena.

CONCLUSION: ITS BEEN A LONG DAY, LETS KEEP IT SHOT

The sentence the court will issue here, is like thriller in Manila. We are awaiting with red eyes to see whether the rule of law will take priority or vibes will be the talk of the day.

I look forward to seeing how the court will reasoning hitting Malema with fine and some counseling as a sentence.