Malema's version on discharging firearm filled with contradictions, state argues

EFF leader Julius Malema’s version about firing a fake rifle at a party event is filled with contradictions, while evidence shows his co-accused tampered with the gun in question to try to fool ballistic testing, the state argued in court on Monday.

Malema and co-accused Adriaan Snyman’s public firearm discharge case resumed in the East London magistrate's court on Monday with closing arguments being heard.

The EFF leader is charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a built-up area or public place, reckless endangerment of people and property, and failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to people or property.

He is accused of firing between 14 and 15 live rounds from a 9mm handgun on a stage in front of 20,000 EFF supporters during the party's fifth anniversary celebrations in 2018. Malema then allegedly fired seven rounds from a rifle, with the incidents being caught on footage which went viral, leading to police opening an inquiry.

Malema’s bodyguard, Snyman, faces charges of failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to people or property and providing a firearm or ammunition to someone not allowed to possess it.

In his defence, Malema had told the court he had received the firearm from someone else who works for Snyman’s security company with the intention of firing shots to excite the crowd. He denied using a real firearm, stating the gun did not have live ammunition and “anything without ammunition is not a gun”.

In his closing arguments, state prosecutor Joel Cesar said Malema’s version was filled with discrepancies and in some instances, the EFF leader evaded answering questions by responding with rhetorical questions.

For example, Malema had testified that the four bodyguards assigned to him never left his side, even when he went to the bathroom. However, during cross-examination, Malema had told the court he could not confirm where the bodyguards were when he had had fired the firearms on stage.

“The sworn statements by the bodyguards are that they were not inside the stadium at the time of the incident but were behind the stadium. He contradicts that all four guarded him and were present during the incident,” said Cesar.

“If his version is to be accepted, it means the bodyguards lied about being on stage and were not forthcoming of what they witnessed.”

When questioned about firing the 9mm handgun, Malema had told the court he did not know what the firearm looked like when he fired it. Cesar said this was contradictory as Malema had previously told the court he was trained in firearm use by the ANC when he was nine years old and owned a handgun.

Cesar said the handgun Malema fired was a Glock belonging to the security company Tactical Security Services.

“He lied about things that were so obvious, like the number of shots fired, despite the experts counting between 14 and 15 shots and an additional seven shots with the rifle. He refused to answer more questions on this aspect as he was not charged for discharging the handgun and [said he] will only answer questions on the discharge of the rifle ... He was evasive as he anticipated the cross-examination,” Cesar said.

A state witness, who cleaned up after the event and found an empty cartridge a few metres from the stage, handed it to her supervisors who gave it to police. The cartridge matched the rifle that belonged to Tactical Security Services.

Though neither Malema nor Snyman’s fingerprints were found on the cartridge, it was proved this was the firearm used by Malema. This was because the police investigations into Tactical Security Services’ firearms found a rifle was issued to Larry Mavundla, the bodyguard who Malema told the court had handed him the firearm on stage.

“The accused’s version that it was a blank firearm should be rejected because a blank firearm cannot produce cartridges. We submit that the time of producing of the accused’s supposed blank firearm ... is a desperate attempt to evade the truth,” said Cesar.

“[Malema] provided no plausible explanation of how cartridges were discovered at the same stadium ... The submission is that it was a real firearm because it was booked out to Larry Mavundla and [Malema] told the court he received the firearm from Mavundla.”

The state argued it could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Snyman was guilty of his charges as the footage of the event indicated he was shocked by Malema’s act.

Cesar said looking at the viral videos, it was not clear that Snyman had handed the firearm to Malema.

“When I look closer, [the video] revealed how he was just as shocked, from my perspective. I might be wrong. It is my submission that he was just as shocked when [Malema] fired the shot and seemed unaware and caught off-guard and appeared quickly to take the rifle from [Malema]. The state has not proved its case relating to that particular issue beyond a reasonable doubt.”

However, Cesar linked Snyman to tampering with evidence as the police’s ballistic testing of the rifle found that serial numbers of various parts did not match the firearm.

While police took 40 rifles from the security company, it was the rifle issued to Mavundla that tested positive for the cartridge that had changed parts, including the bridge block.

“[Snyman] is the only one to facilitate and remove the bridge block to affect the outcome of the ballistic results ... It is no coincidence that this bridge block was removed because it seems important on the rest of the cartridge on how positive findings would have been received ... I submit that, in my view, it is no coincidence and it was done deliberately to affect the outcome of the ballistic tests,” said Cesar.

The proceedings continue.

TimesLIVE