Malema faces a prescribed sentence of 15 years, but he’ll probably receive less

On Wednesday, 1 October 2025, the East London Magistrates’ Court found EFF leader Julius Malema guilty on five counts: the unlawful possession of a firearm‚ unlawful possession of ammunition‚ discharging a firearm in a built-up area or public place, and reckless endangerment of people or property.

Sentencing proceedings are scheduled to start on 23 January 2026. 

According to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, a magistrate’s court or a high court may sentence a first-time offender to a minimum of 15 years’ imprisonment for an offence related to the possession of an automatic or semi-automatic firearm.

Malema was found to have fired shots from an assault rifle during the EFF’s fifth birthday celebrations at the Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane, Eastern Cape, in 2018. He fired the shots into the air from a stage in the stadium.

He claimed the firearm was a “toy gun” and that the weapon was loaded with blanks, which the court rejected.

Read more: Malema vows to appeal against gun conviction as possible prison sentence looms

If Malema receives a prison sentence, he may no longer be eligible to serve as a Member of Parliament (MP). 

According to the Constitution, anyone sentenced to at least 12 months in prison without the option of a fine is not eligible to be an MP for five years after the sentence has been completed. If he receives a suspended sentence, he can still be an MP.

Read more: Julius Malema’s firearm verdict and the EFF’s fork in the road

The courts have significant discretion in sentencing, however, and in other cases, they have often deviated from the minimum 15 years’ imprisonment. 

Possible suspended sentence

Eastern Cape National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesperson Luxolo Tyali would not comment on the sentence the State would call for in Malema’s case. 

“For now, we have to wait and see what mitigating factors they advance,” Tyali told Daily Maverick.

“Remember, the matter has been set for a pre-sentence report to be submitted. And that pre-sentence report will be covering matters relating to Mr Malema,” he said.

‘‘So, for now, we will not jump the gun and state what sentence we want.”

Tyali said that the NPA welcomed the judgment, even though the other accused in the matter, Malema’s former bodyguard Adriaan Snyman, who handed the EFF leader the firearm, was exonerated.

“The judgment is what we were hoping for,” Tyali said.

Attorney Tyrone Maseko told Daily Maverick on Wednesday that there were three key considerations during sentencing, which he said were all balanced to arrive at a fitting sentence: seriousness of the offence, the interests of the community and the personal circumstances of the accused.

Maseko said that generally, a first-time offender on a gun charge, in which there was no attempt on anybody’s life, was unlikely to receive a sentence of direct imprisonment.

“It is more likely that there will be a suspended sentence for five years with the alternative of a fine. The sentence would only kick in if he was to re-offend, but even then, he could pay the fine, failing which, report to prison, generally [for] less than two years,” said Maseko.

“It is highly unlikely that Mr Malema will go to prison now or even if he re-offended within the five years, the suspended sentence would kick in, but he would most likely pay a fine,” Maseko said.

Malema’s remarks

Speaking to

style="font-weight: 400;">Newzroom Afrika on Wednesday afternoon, Ulrich Roux of Ulrich Roux Attorneys and Associates, said it could be in Malema’s favour to show remorse during sentencing proceedings.

Roux said the magistrate might not be happy with Malema’s remarks while addressing his supporters outside the court. He said the magistrate could use that address as an example that Malema needed lengthy rehabilitation.

In his address to supporters outside the court soon after the delivery of the judgment, Malema accused Magistrate Twanet Olivier of racism.

In her judgment, Olivier said Malema was evasive during cross-examination and particularly mentioned that he said that “he could not count the shots he fired because he had [only] graduated from woodwork”.

Roux said that while the minimum sentence for Malema’s crimes was 15 years’ imprisonment, he could prove exceptional circumstances and force the magistrate to give him a lighter sentence. 

However, Roux said this depended on a number of factors, such as whether there was any risk of harm to anyone resulting from the reckless handling of the firearm, and the purpose of handling the firearm in the way he did. 

‘Unduly harsh’

In a 2020 study on sentencing practices for the offence of unlawful possession of semi-automatic firearms, Professor Pieter du Toit from North West University pointed out that each case was unique and the courts should impose individualised sentences. 

“If the court is satisfied that substantial and compelling circumstances exist which justify the imposition of a lesser sentence than the prescribed sentence, it must enter those circumstances on the record of the proceedings and must thereupon impose such a lesser sentence,” wrote Du Toit. 

He noted multiple cases where the courts imposed sentences below the 15-year prescribed minimum, which was perceived as “unduly harsh”.

While the courts had imposed 15-year sentences in some cases, they were often related to violent crimes such as murder and robbery. 

“The grading of the offence will typically be informed by the risk of harmfulness and the culpability of the offender,” Du Toit wrote. 

While noting that offenders not linked to serious crimes often received lesser sentences, Du Toit said the courts were increasingly taking a harsh view on the unlawful possession of semi-automatic firearms. 

“In cases where the accused was convicted of the stand-alone offence of the unlawful possession of a semi-automatic firearm, the courts are taking an increasingly unsympathetic stance towards offenders, and terms of imprisonment in the range of seven to 10 years’ imprisonment are commonly imposed.

“In addition to the accused’s personal circumstances, one of the most important factors in deciding on an appropriate sentence is the explanation of how the unlawful possession came about. It seems that the judicial sentiment increasingly does not support the view that the possession of an unlicensed firearm should be treated as serious; only if the weapon has been used for the commission of a serious crime.”

Given these considerations, it seems extremely unlikely that Malema could receive the prescribed sentence of 15 years in prison. He could, however, receive a prison sentence, direct or suspended. 

Whatever the outcome, Malema told supporters on Wednesday he planned to appeal against the conviction, up to the Constitutional Court if necessary. DM