Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader, Julius Malema and his bodyguard Adriaan Snyman — both facing charges of discharging a firearm in public — will hear their fate next month when Magistrate Twanet Olivier is expected to hand down judgment.
Malema and Snyman’s legal teams argued an application to discharge the charges against their clients on Wednesday, citing a lack of evidence.
Malema’s lawyer, Advocate Laurence Hodes, argued that the State had reached the end of its case yet and still did not know the details of the alleged firearm that was allegedly fired at the party’s fifth anniversary celebrations at the Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane, near East London.
"The make of the firearm and ammunition allegedly used, which is still unknown to the state at the end of the case, speaks volumes," Hodes said.
In his heads of argument, Hodes said the videos used as evidence in the case showed that it was "impossible" for a spent cartridge to have landed where it was discovered by a cleaner, had it been fired by Malema on the stage.
Hodes reminded the court that the five South African Police Service (SAPS) VIP Protection Unit members all testified that they had not seen anything untoward and that there were no fingerprints linking Malema to the firearm or cartridge.
"The State’s case is not just improbable; it is impossible," he said.
Malema’s legal team further argued that there was insufficient evidence against the political leader, the authenticity of the viral videos from the celebrations could be questioned, and there were no eyewitnesses called by the State who testified against Malema.
“We will see if the State can stand up here today and produce any evidence that [Snyman] handed the firearm to [Malema],” said Advocate Shane Matthews, who represented Snyman in this case.
However, State Prosecutor Advocate Joel Cesar said the state had the best witness, “a silent witness”, in the form of video footage.
"That is better than any eyewitness. It is unbiased, unemotional, and does not exaggerate or take any sides. The court can see for itself what had happened," Cesar argued.
Magistrate Olivier said due to the voluminous amounts of documents and submissions, she would need the time to peruse them all.
She remanded the matter to October 19 for judgment.
IOL