World

Julius Malema Sentenced to Five Years, Granted Bail Pending Appeal

Share
Share

South Africa’s outspoken opposition leader, Julius Malema, has been sentenced to five years in prison after being found guilty of illegal possession and public discharge of a firearm.

The 45 year old leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters and serving Member of Parliament will not be immediately incarcerated, as Magistrate Twanet Olivier granted him leave to appeal the ruling.

Malema remained composed in court as the sentence was delivered, despite the potential implications for his political career. He had earlier been convicted on multiple counts, including unlawful possession of a firearm, reckless endangerment, and discharging a weapon in public.

The charges stem from a 2018 incident during the EFF fifth anniversary celebration in Eastern Cape, where Malema was seen in a widely circulated video firing a semi automatic rifle into the air. While he maintained during trial that the act was celebratory, the court rejected his defence.

In her ruling, Olivier described the act as premeditated rather than spontaneous, emphasizing that Malema’s status as a prominent public figure placed a greater responsibility on him to act within the law.

  UK Launches Tougher Crackdown on Illegal Working with Stricter Employer Checks

Despite the conviction, Malema walked free after the hearing and was welcomed by hundreds of supporters outside the court. Addressing the crowd, he claimed the judgment was politically motivated, alleging efforts to silence his voice, though he provided no evidence to support the claim.

Malema, a former youth leader of the African National Congress, was expelled following a fallout with former President Jacob Zuma. He later founded the EFF, which has grown into a major opposition force and emerged as the fourth largest party in the 2024 general elections.

Reacting to the development, ANC Secretary General Fikile Mbalula suggested the case may reflect broader political targeting, while AfriForum, which initiated the case, insisted it was strictly about upholding the law.

The case continues to generate debate across South Africa as the appeal process moves forward.

Share

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *