The magistrate postponed the trial to April for final arguments.
The state has challenged a social worker’s report that recommended EFF leader Julius Malema should avoid jail in his firearm discharge case.
Malema returned to the East London Regional Court in the Eastern Cape for his pre-sentencing proceedings on Friday.
The sentencing follows his conviction on five counts, including unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging of a firearm in a public space, and reckless endangerment to a person or property.
ALSO READ: From rally gunfire to court: how Malema’s firearm case unfolded
Magistrate Twanet Olivier handed down the guilty verdict on 1 October 2025.
The EFF leader faces a minimum sentence of two years and a maximum of 15 years’ imprisonment.
The case stems from a viral video that showed Malema firing what appeared to be a rifle in front of a large crowd during the EFF’s fifth anniversary celebrations at the Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane, Eastern Cape, on 28 July 2018.
State challenges Malema pre-sentencing report
During Friday’s proceedings, state prosecutor Joel Caesar cross-examined Jessi-Ann Thompson, a social worker in private practice who testified for the defence and compiled a pre-sentencing report aimed at presenting mitigating circumstances.
Thompson recommended that Malema be given a suspended fine rather than a prison sentence.
She also proposed additional conditions, including restricting him from applying for a firearm licence for a defined period and ordering him to make a donation to the non-governmental organisation Gun Free South Africa.
READ MORE: Malema conviction hailed as proof South Africa’s firearm laws work
However, Caesar challenged Thompson’s report, accusing her of relying on material recycled from earlier cases and labelling it “copy and paste jobs”.
He informed the court that Thompson had previously advanced a similar recommendation in a murder matter involving an accused who had “terrorised” his own family and ultimately killed a relative.
Thompson explained that she had recommended a reduced sentence, deviating from the prescribed minimum sentence for murder, that would have allowed him to serve his sentence under correctional supervision at home.
Caesar maintained that, in his experience, such sentencing proposals were highly unusual in cases involving murder.
“So in other words, you recommended that a non-custodial sentence imposed in such a serious offence such as murder,” he remarked.
Similar past recommendations highlighted
Caesar brought up a separate case involving an accused charged with negligent use of a firearm, which had caused injuries to the victim.
The individual had also faced charges of discharging a firearm in public and assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Thompson told the court that the incident had stemmed from a dispute between rival families, which “spilled over” into a public area.
READ MORE: Would the EFF suffer if Malema is jailed?
She admitted that she had recommended a non-custodial sentence in that matter as well, but insisted that the unique circumstances justified her decision.
Caesar argued that Thompson’s past recommendations reflected the approach she had taken in Malema’s case, which he characterised as “very serious.”
The social worker, however, contended that the situations were not comparable.
“In these cases, there were exceptional personal circumstances,” she said.
Questions over access and affordability
Caesar suggested to Thompson that her services are largely accessible only to those with the financial means to pay for them.
He added that individuals unable to afford her fees often end up serving time in prison.
Thompson responded that she makes a point of lowering her rates to ensure her services are more widely accessible.
“In general, my approach is to make sure that my costs are capped at a specific amount and that it doesn’t exceed that amount to make it more affordable for the wider audience, irrespective of who the person is,” she told the court.
Later, Caesar questioned Thompson on whether she recognised the potential danger of Malema firing multiple shots into the air.
She confirmed that her report had noted the incident could indeed have led to loss of life.
Olivier postponed the trial to 15 April for final arguments.
NOW MORE: Malema claims guilty verdict a ‘badge of honour’, vows to appeal
