The defence team of EFF leader Julius Malema has argued for a non-custodial sentence.
Making closing arguments in the magistrate’s court in KuGompo City on Wednesday, advocate Laurence Hodes SC argued that while Malema has been convicted on five charges, the counts were from a single event which lasted no more than two minutes.
In January Malema was found guilty on five charges, including the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a built-up area and reckless endangerment.
The charges relate to a 2018 EFF rally in Mdantsane in the Eastern Cape where the party leader was filmed firing a semi-automatic rifle in the air.
On Wednesday Hodes argued cases of possession don’t always attract direct imprisonment, and that courts must always look at the specific facts of each case to determine whether imprisonment is appropriate.
To send any person to prison for this single event would be shockingly inappropriate.
“To send any person to prison for this single event would be shockingly inappropriate.
“The lawful and appropriate sentence to be imposed cannot include a custodial sentence. Only a non-custodial sentence would be compatible with the principles of sentencing in South Africa. A deviation from that approach would simply show the accused is being singled out for unduly harsh punishment,” Hodes said.
He said such a submission is fortified by the objective fact that there were no injuries sustained by anyone and no damage to any property.
Hodes said it is also underscored by the fact this was a single continuous event of no more than two minutes and caused no harm.
“No court can tolerate the imprisonment of anyone for this incident.
“In fact, nobody testified they were in fear of the accused by virtue of the offences committed by him. Additionally, no evidence was led in aggravation of sentence,” he said.
State prosecutor advocate Joel Cesar argued for a custodial sentence.
He argued Malema is considered a lawmaker and broke the law while holding that position.
Cesar said the viral video which landed Malema in hot water spoke for itself, and argued that the fact that the state didn’t call witnesses to testify they were in fear during the incident was “neither here nor there”.
“His intention was clear. He was going to do what he wanted to do irrespective of the danger that posed,” Cesar argued.
He said Malema took citizen for fools by saying he fired a toy gun.
“He blames everybody for his actions.
“He dragged us to be participants in his show. It’s time for the court to say the show is over. The court must send a message to would-be offenders that if you do a crime you will do the time,” he said.
The arguments continue.
Daily Dispatch
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.