Why Julius Malema’s ‘holy spirit’ testimony failed spectacularly
A legal experts says Malema – recently convicted on five gun-related charges – did not himself any favours during court proceedings.
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema’s legal woes deepened following his conviction in the East London Magistrate Court on Wednesday, with a legal analysis pointing to his own performance under cross-examination as the primary culprit for the guilty verdict.
Speaking after the judgment, legal expert Ulrich Roux assessed that by Magistrate Twanette Olivier found Malema to be “not a credible witness”, whose evidence was consequently rejected by the court. This outcome, according to Roux, highlights the strategic failure of the EFF leader’s testimony in the firearm discharge trial.
Malema faces a possible 15 years in prison when sentencing proceedings get underway in January 2025.
Guilty Malema ‘evasive’ during court testimony
The magistrate, during the lengthy two-and-a-half-day judgment recap, observed that Malema had actively “evaded perfectly straightforward questions” throughout the proceedings. The lack of credibility was starkly exposed when he was pressed to explain a cartridge from the rifle found at the 2018 EFF rally in Mdantsane.
Malema’s defence against the charge – unlawful handling and discharging of a firearm – was memorable, if legally devastating.
He told the court that “it must have been the holy spirit that the firearm went off”. Roux stated that this was “really not a good answer strategically” if Malema intended to come across as a credible witness.
When confronted with objective evidence, the EFF leader continued his evasiveness. Pressed on ballistic evidence, Malema dismissed his knowledge of his own weapon’s functionality. He stated: “I don’t know those things. I just have a firearm… I’ve never paid attention to those things”.
Furthermore, when comparing his own recollection against the expert testimony provided by the state, Malema quipped that he struggled with “woodwork at school,” asking, “Who am I?” in comparison to the expert.
Roux suggested that this rejected and non-credible testimony could severely “count against him” in his announced attempt to appeal the conviction in higher courts, potentially including the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court.