Julius Malema’s bravado ends in court. The verdict proves that even firebrand leaders are not above the law.
Julius Malema probably regards the late Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, as a fellow revolutionary in the struggle against Western capitalism.
The difference is that, notwithstanding the EFF leader’s vow to die for his beliefs, he is, and never will be, the revolutionary fighter that Castro was.
To overthrow the Batista government in Havana in 1959, Castro actually fought, weapon in hand, coming close to death several times.
Setting aside what you may think of his politics, Castro was at least a “real deal” revolutionary fighter and not an ersatz soldier, like Malema is.
And, as a phony fighter, the EFF leader would have had no compunction in grabbing the automatic weapon handed to him by his (white) bodyguard and firing it into the air to prove his “military” credentials.
Trying to convince his followers of his bravery was an act that landed him in court and, rightly, got him convicted of illegal possession of a firearm and of illegally discharging it.
ALSO READ: ‘I believe he will not survive this’: EFF future on knife edge after Malema guilty verdict
He’s lucky, we think, he wasn’t charged with attempted murder, because those bullets had to fall somewhere… and that somewhere may have been the soft skin of a person.
The guilty verdict handed down at the magistrate’s court in East London yesterday, has already been magnified by Malema into his personal persecution on behalf of sundry sell-outs to capitalism.
His message is: fight like me, Comrades – when he has no intention of doing any such thing. Nor will his people ever live like he does, surrounded by the luxury trappings of that hated Western capitalism.
Yet, the conviction was important for a number of reasons.
It shows that no-one, not even a firebrand revolutionary who promises civil disorder if he is at all threatened, is above the law.
Other gun cowboys – and there are many – should know the law can also come for them.
NOW READ: Malema claims guilty verdict a ‘badge of honour’, vows to appeal
