Read more
‘Why didn’t Malema fire at crowd’: State argues gun was not a toy
The EFF leader and his co-accused are facing charges of discharging a firearm in public.
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema. Picture: Jacques Nelles
The state has defended its case against Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema and his bodyguard Adriaan Snyman.
Judgment was reserved by the East London Magistrate’s Court in Malema and Snyman’s trial on Wednesday as the accused, who pleaded not guilty, seek to have their charges dismissed due to a lack of evidence.
The EFF leader is facing five charges, including the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a built-up area or public space and reckless endangerment to person or property, while Snyman faces two charges under the Firearms Control Act.
AfriForum laid charges after Malema was captured on camera firing what appeared to be an assault rifle during the EFF’s fifth birthday celebrations at the Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane in 2018.
‘Interest of justice’
On Wednesday, state prosecutor Advocate Joel Cesar told the court it was in the “interest of justice” that the pair’s section 174 application application be refused.
Cesar disputed the defence’s claim that the state’s case was full of inconsistencies, saying the events depicted in the viral video was corroborated by witnesses in the trial.
The prosecutor said another piece of crucial evidence was the bullet cartridge, which was found by a municipal worker at the stadium two days after the EFF rally celebrations.
The cartridge was positively linked to a firearm seized from Snyman’s company.
“Your worship, this is just a normal, ordinary person who was performing her duties on the day in question. She has got no interest in this particular matter… she didn’t even know what that spent cartridge that she picked up was,” Cesar said.
ALSO READ: ‘I can’t tell whether it’s a real gun’ – Malema pushes for charges to be dropped
“Where she found it, in my submission, is irrelevant… what is of importance is that coincidentally it was found on the side which one can see on the direction where these shots were fired. The incident occurred on the evening of the 28th of July and the stage where still there on the 29th… it wasn’t dismantled.”
Malema’s lawyer, Advocate Laurance Hodes had argued earlier that it was “impossible” for the cartridge to have landed where it was found.
However, Cesar maintained that the state presented solid evidence to prove its case.
“A real firearm was brought into this court belonging to the company of accused number two, a real spent cartridge was brought for the court to examine and look at the footage.
“I am of the view and its my submission that the court was placed in the best position to assess the evidence, to look at it and making its findings in this regard.”
‘Real videos, toy firearm’
Cesar also highlighted that other videos – retrieved from Gear House, the company hired to set up equipment and record the event – had been authenticated.
“There was no tampering or any alterations to the viral video as [the defence] wants to allude to. To do that would just amount to sheer speculation, whereas, the Gear House footage had already been authenticated.
“We have argued this issue relating admissibility thoroughly on the previous occasion… that horse has bolted already. The only issue that the court must decide on is the relevancy of those particular videos, not the authenticity.”
READ MORE: ‘No eyewitness, no fingerprints’: Malema’s lawyer insists state’s case has ‘deficiencies’
The prosecutor also said it was “highly improbable” that Malema fired shots with a “toy firearm” or “movie gun”.
“If one looks at the footage you don’t need to be an expert to see that it looks similar to the actual firearm that was produced here in court.
“If one looks at the actions on the video of accused number one, he doesn’t fire with this toy firearm into the crowd… he instead takes a secluded place, moves to the right side of the stage and he fires the shots where there are no supporters or very minimal supporters.
“If this was a toy firearm he could have just fired it into everyone else because he was showing it off. Why didn’t he do that? That’s an issue the court must also consider,” Cesar argued.
Magistrate Twanet Olivier is expected to make her ruling on 19 October.
