Malema deserves a suspended fine, according to a social worker who testified during pre-sentencing in the firearm discharge matter. The argument centres on proportional punishment, public safety, and the wider impact of incarceration on dependants and democratic representation. The East London Regional Court heard the mitigation evidence on 23 January 2026, after a guilty verdict delivered on 1 October 2025.

Contents

What Malema was convicted of, and why sentencing matters

The National Prosecuting Authority confirmed five guilty findings linked to firearm and ammunition possession and the public discharge. The counts include unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, discharge of a firearm in a built-up area, failure to take reasonable precautions, and reckless endangerment.

The case flows from a 28 July 2018 incident at the EFF fifth anniversary event at Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane, filmed and widely shared.

Sentencing now decides punishment, not guilt. South African courts usually weigh proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the offender’s personal circumstances.

Jessi-Ann Thompson, a private-practice social worker, compiled a pre-sentencing report for the defence. She urged the court to avoid imprisonment and apply a suspended fine with conditions.

Her mitigation points, as reported from court, include:

No reported injuries or property damage from the discharge during the event.
The shots lasted “less than a minute”, described as celebratory gunfire.
No sign of the firearm being held for wider criminal aims, based on her assessment.
First-offender profile, with no further criminal implication linked to the incident in the years since.
Family impact, since Malema serves as the main financial provider for his wife and three children.

Thompson also framed incarceration as an extreme sanction, describing prison as the “harshest form of punishment” reserved for stronger retribution and deterrence needs.

Gun violence context in South Africa raises the stakes for deterrence

South Africa faces severe gun harm, so courts treat firearm conduct seriously. Gun Free South Africa cited SAPS crime statistics presented to Parliament showing gun-related murders rising from 23 people shot daily in 2021 to 31 people shot daily in 2022–2023, a 35% increase.

This context strengthens the public interest in deterrence. Still, deterrence does not require the same penalty in every firearm case. Courts often separate:

High-harm gun crime versus negligent display

A firearm discharge in a crowd creates risk, even without injuries. Risk alone supports conviction and sanction. The sentencing question asks whether prison fits the specific harm, intent, and offender profile described to court.

A sentence that signals wrongfulness, without overreach

A suspended fine still punishes. A structured sentence also signals community standards, especially against celebratory gunfire, while reserving incarceration for cases with clear intent to harm or repeat offending.

Political office risks, and why courts note collateral consequences

The court heard a key consequence: a sentence exceeding 12 months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine triggers disqualification from Parliament, with a five-year bar after sentence completion.

The Constitutional Court has discussed section 47(1)(e) in recent litigation, confirming the disqualification rule for sentences over 12 months without a fine option.

Collateral consequences do not guarantee leniency. Courts still prioritise legality and public safety. Still, sentencing practice often recognises knock-on effects, especially where a court can achieve deterrence through alternatives.

What a suspended fine could include, with safeguards for public safety

Thompson proposed conditions beyond payment. The court heard suggested restrictions on firearm licence applications for a defined period, plus a donation to Gun Free South Africa.

A practical sentencing package, aligned with those proposals, often includes: