When Julius Malema, leader of Economic Freedom Fighters, was handed a guilty verdict on 1 October 2025, South Africa’s political theatre shifted dramatically.
The court in Johannesburg found him guilty of five serious offenses – illegal possession of a firearm, unlawful discharge of a weapon in public, reckless endangerment and two related charges – after an EFF rally where he allegedly fired between 14 and 15 live rounds from an assault rifle onto a stage packed with roughly 20,000 supporters.
Malema’s run‑ins with the law stretch back over a decade. In March 2010, he was convicted of hate speech for deriding former President Jacob Zuma’s rape accuser. A 2012 fraud, money‑laundering and racketeering case fizzled out in 2015 after endless delays by the National Prosecuting Authority. Most recently, a 2025 hate‑speech conviction labeled his 2022 remarks as an incitement to kill “racists,” and he is already appealing that decision.
What makes the October ruling distinctive isn’t just the severity of the charges but what the South African Constitution demands when a parliamentarian lands a custodial sentence exceeding twelve months.
The prosecution presented video footage showing a rifle discharging live ammunition onstage, eyewitness accounts of panic among the crowd, and forensic analysis confirming the rounds matched those recovered at the scene. The defense argued the gun was a prop that mis‑fired, but the judge rejected that explanation, noting the clear intent to fire live fire in a densely packed venue.
Judge Thabo Mokoena sentenced Malema to a minimum of 15 years, pending a pre‑sentencing hearing slated for January 2026. The sentencing guidelines also trigger an automatic disqualification from the National Assembly, a provision enshrined in the Constitution of South Africa.
“The law is clear: if Malema receives a custodial sentence exceeding 12 months, he would lose his position in parliament,” explained political analyst Seepe Mthembu, who appeared on the Sunday Times panel. His assessment echoed that of the EFF’s legal team, which nevertheless claimed the case was shaped by external pressure, pointing to statements from the United States that “the use of firearms in public gatherings is unacceptable.”
The United States reference sparked a diplomatic ripple, with the South African Department of International Relations denying any interference and reaffirming the independence of the judiciary.
Section 47 of the Constitution stipulates that any person sentenced to more than twelve months in prison is ineligible to serve as a Member of Parliament. Since Malema’s minimum term far exceeds that threshold, the moment a final custodial sentence is confirmed, his parliamentary seat will be declared vacant.
Legal scholar Dr. Lindiwe Khumalo from the University of Cape Town noted, “This isn’t just a personal setback for the EFF leader; it sets a precedent for how serious criminal conduct by elected officials is handled.”
The Economic Freedom Fighters, founded in 2013 with Malema at the helm, have risen to become the third‑largest party in the National Assembly. Their support base is heavily concentrated in the townships of Gauteng, KwaZulu‑Natal and the Eastern Cape. Recent polls by Afrobarometer showed the EFF at 13.2 % of the vote, a modest dip from its 14.6 % peak in the 2019 election.
If Malema is removed from parliament, the party will need to appoint an interim leader. Deputy leader Mokgoro hinted at a “smooth transition,” but insiders say internal factions are already jostling for influence.
Malema’s legal team has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Appeal, arguing procedural irregularities and claiming the evidence was mishandled. The appeal is expected to be heard no earlier than June 2026.
Meanwhile, the pre‑sentencing hearing in January will determine the exact length of the custodial term and whether any portion of the sentence might be suspended. Should the court decide on a sentence under twelve months – an unlikely scenario given the gravity of the offenses – Malema could technically retain his seat, though political pressure would remain intense.
Regardless of the outcome, this episode could reshape South Africa’s discourse on political violence, gun control and accountability. Observers abroad are watching to see whether the country’s institutions can uphold the rule of law in a hyper‑polarised environment.
If the final sentence exceeds twelve months, Malema will lose his parliamentary seat, forcing the EFF to appoint a new leader in the National Assembly. That could trigger internal power struggles and potentially dent the party’s poll numbers, which were already sliding to 13.2 % in the latest Afrobarometer survey.
His team has lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Appeal, arguing procedural flaws and mishandling of evidence. A hearing is expected in mid‑2026, and the appeal could overturn or reduce the convictions, though the pre‑sentencing hearing in January will still set a baseline term.
Some EFF spokespeople suggested that U.S. criticism of public firearm use may have influenced the prosecution’s vigor. South African officials, however, dismissed any foreign meddling, emphasizing that the judiciary acted independently based on the evidence presented.
The case reinforces the constitutional rule that any elected official sentenced to more than a year in prison automatically loses their seat. It signals that serious criminal conduct will trigger tangible political consequences, potentially deterring future misuse of power.
The definitive answer hinges on the pre‑sentencing hearing scheduled for January 2026. If the court announces a custodial term longer than twelve months, the constitutional ban on his parliamentary participation will take effect immediately thereafter.
Written by Zimkita Khayone Mvunge
View all posts by: Zimkita Khayone Mvunge