Guilty or not guilty? Malema will know his fate in gun case on this date
On Monday, 21 July, both the state and the defence submitted their closing arguments on the merits of the case.
As previously reported, and his security official, Adriaan Snyman are charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, discharge of a firearm in a built-up area, failure to take reasonable precaution to person or property, and reckless endangerment to person or property.
The charges emanate from the party's 5th anniversary celebrations in Mdantsane in the Eastern Cape where Malema could be seen dancing and singing on the stage. Thereafter, he allegedly is seen firing the rifle into the air before he hands it over to Snyman.
Malema and Snyman have pleaded not guilty to all charges.
In 2024, the prosecution closed its case, having led the evidence of 19 witnesses. On the other hand, the defence led the evidence of two expert witnesses, in firearms control and forensic ballistics, for Snyman.
Malema took the stand in his defence. All the witnesses were cross-examined by Advocate Joel Cesar, for the state.
NPA spokesperson in the Eastern Cape, Luxolo Tyali, said that based on the evidence and arguments meticulously presented by the prosecution, he believes that the NPA has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and hopes that the magistrate will convict the accused.
In contrast, Malema's lawyer, advocate Laurence Hodes, insists that the state's case lacks real evidence.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1.
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
8 minutes ago
- IOL News
Freedom of expression has limits, Supreme Court rules in social media defamation case
The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that neither the Constitution nor freedom of expression is an excuse for defamation. Image: FILE Neither the Constitution nor freedom of expression protects a person who posts defamatory material concerning another on social media, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in turning down an appeal by a farmer after his Facebook post sparked death threats against an attorney. A dispute arose between Pretoria attorney Pieter Strydom and farmer Francois Harman after the latter accused Strydom in a Facebook post of targeting white farmers. Strydom, upset by the contents of the post, obtained an urgent interdict against Harman to stop harassing him. The high court found that Harman and his friends and followers on his Facebook account posted and published offensive and life-threatening defamatory statements concerning Strydom. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Some of the postings were found by the high court to amount to a smear campaign. The high court ordered Harman to remove the published material from his Facebook account, which referred to Strydom. Harman was further ordered to submit, under oath, a list of the particulars of the persons who made the responding postings. While Harman had meanwhile removed his posts, he turned to the SCA to appeal against the fact that he had to disclose the particulars of his followers who published threats against Strydom. Strydom is an attorney and insolvency practitioner who also represents the Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and its financial agent, Unigro Financial Services. The Land Bank and Unigro advance loans to farmers, subject to agreed terms and conditions, which include mortgaging their farms as collateral. The loan agreements provide for annual instalment payments of the amount loaned, due to seasonal harvest of the crops. Whenever a farmer falls in default of payment, the Land Bank instructs its attorneys, in this case, Strydom's law firm, to institute legal proceedings to recover the debt. Included among the farmers was Harman and his company, who fell into arrears with payments. Harman took to his Facebook account, stating that Strydom and some officials at the Land Bank were the cause of his problems. Strydom obtained an interdict against Harman, prohibiting him from committing verbal abuse through electronic communication as well as refraining from harassing him. The order was obtained in Harman's absence. The following day, a messenger tried to serve him with the protection order, but Harman denied them entry into his house and instead photographed them. After they left, he again took to his Facebook account and posted the pictures together with a post regarding how the lives of white farmers are made difficult in the country. On the same day, his Facebook post was followed by a slew of other vitriolic postings from different persons - some made death threats towards Strydom. This resulted in the court ordering him to take down his post and to disclose the identities of those who had levelled threats and made defamatory statements towards Strydom. Harman refused to submit the list of his Facebook friends involved and cited various excuses, including that 'the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) prevented him from divulging this information. He also stated freedom of expression as an excuse. To post a message on Facebook that someone 'needs a bullet between the eyes' is an impermissible exercise of freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression, like all rights, has limits. The one obvious limit is when its exercise encroaches into the domain of another person's right, the SCA said. It found that Strydom is entitled to the list of persons responsible for these unlawful acts in order to vindicate his rights, if he deems fit to do so. Cape Times
The Citizen
an hour ago
- The Citizen
Elephant trampling outside Mossel Bay: Reserve's CEO named as victim
The man who died after being trampled by an elephant at Gondwana Private Game Reserve yesterday morning has been identified as the reserve's CEO and co-owner, FC Conradie (39). Mossel Bay Advertiser reports that Conradie, a husband, father to three young children, and friend to many, was trampled at about 08:00. Emergency medical services declared him dead on the scene. KwaNonqaba police spokesperson Warrant Officer Kappie Kapp said yesterday that an inquest docket had been opened and an investigation launched. A representative of the reserve and close friend of the Conradie family, who asked not to be named, said all employees at the reserve send their condolences to Conradie's family. 'We ask that people respect the privacy of the family while they are grieving such a tragic loss. This was a tragedy, and everyone who knew him is dealing with an unimaginable loss,' he said. He added that the circumstances surrounding the incident are still being looked into and urged the public not to speculate. Andries Erwee posted a tribute to Conradie on the public Facebook group Kalahari-Vasbyt yesterday, stating that Conradie was an avid supporter of the group and had funded a tree project for it. He sent condolences to Conradie's wife and parents, saying Conradie was like no other man. Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel. Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal. Read original story on At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Fadiel Adams faces consequences for derogatory remarks in National Assembly
National Coloured Congress leader Fadiel Adams Adams will be suspended from parliamentary debates and committees for 15 days and his salary will be docked for the same length of period for contravening the Ethics Code for MPs. Image: Picture: Ayanda Ndamane/African News Agency(ANA) National Coloured Congress leader Fadiel Adams Adams issued an apology on Tuesday to the National Assembly for the derogatory, racist and vulgar language he used against a woman in a social media video rant. National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza described Adams' rant was 'simply repugnant' to repeat when she reprimanded him. 'They are simply repugnant, wholly unbefitting of high office and this institution, and therefore it is inexcusable,' Didiza said. She also said there were avenues available to raise grievances to argue a case both in Parliament and elsewhere for recourse to vulgarity and sexism. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Adams' troubles date back to when he posted a nine-minute video on Facebook. In February, he accused a DA female member of endangering the lives of his children, falsely accused City of Cape Town mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis and called the DA names. DA chief whip George Michalakis lodged a complaint against Adams with the Office of the Registrar of Members' Interests the following month. In its report, the Ethics Committee found that he contravened the Ethics Code and that Adams had stated that he was wrong and undertook to apologise. 'The committee was alarmed at the extremely vulgar and derogatory language used by the member toward, particularly, a woman in the video footage,' reads the report. Didiza said the Code of Ethics outlined the behaviour as expected of MPs when they engage in communication, particularly in social media platforms, that they may not bring Parliament into disrepute. 'A member who is addressing another member or a member of the public on social media platforms must not use derogatory racist or sexist language or content,' she said. Didiza also said it was important for MPs when they communicate on social media platforms to guard the language they use. 'I just want all of us to be aware so that in future we do appreciate the responsibility that we hold. All of the members were elected to the Assembly by the people of South Africa to champion their interests. Our people expect us to do so with vigour, determination and dignity.' Adams was made to enter an apology in the National Assembly, to the public and to the woman that he referred to in the Facebook post for the derogatory, racist and vulgar language that he used. 'I will apologise, Speaker. I will withdraw. Thank you,' he said. Adams will be suspended from parliamentary debates and committees for 15 days and his salary will be docked for the same length of period. He will also attend a consultation with Didiza, the co-chairpersons of the Ethics Committee and the Acting Registrar for discussions on the ethical conduct required of an MP. Minister for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Maropene Ramokgopa will have R10 000 docked from her salary for contravening the Ethics Code for MPs when she failed to declare her financial interests within the stipulated deadline in 2024.. Image: Picture: Oupa Mokoena/African News Agency(ANA) Meanwhile, minister for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Maropene Ramokgopa was reprimanded for failing to failing to declare their financial interests within the stipulated deadline in 2024. Ramakgopa was not present when Didiza reprimanded other culprit ministers and MPs last month, but she tendered an apology because she was on an international trip. Didiza said the Ethics Code provides a set of values for members, who had pledged obedience to the Constitution, to obey, respect and uphold all the law and perform their functions to the best of their ability. She said the code obliged MPs annually to declare their financial interest in a public register to allow the public to confirm that no member may have been exposed to a conflict of interest. Didiza noted with concern that Ramakgopa was provided an opportunity to make written representations but did not do so. 'I, therefore, want to indicate that this is not acceptable,' she said. Ramokgopa was fined a penalty of R10 000 that will be docked from her salary.
