This Content is for Subscribers Only
On the 1st of October 2025, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) responded with defiance after its leader, Julius Malema, was found guilty in a firearm trial at the East London Magistrate’s Court. The case, dating back to the party’s 5th Anniversary rally in the Eastern Cape in 2018, has drawn attention not only for its legal implications but also for its political undertones.
Their Story
Julius Malema, the EFF’s President and Commander-in-Chief, has long positioned himself as a fierce critic of corruption and inequality in South Africa. The firearm trial stems from an incident during a celebration rally where Malema was accused of firing a gun into the air.
For the EFF, this case is not just about the law. It is part of a broader narrative in which Malema faces repeated legal battles they believe are designed to weaken his influence and undermine the movement he leads.
The Event/Occasion
The judgment, delivered more than seven years after the incident, declared Malema guilty while acquitting a co-accused alleged to have handed him the firearm. The EFF described this as inconsistent and evidence of a “witch hunt.”
In its official statement, the party linked the ruling to a wider pattern of what it calls “politically motivated prosecutions.” They argued that from land reform demands to exposing state capture, Malema has been targeted because of his challenge to powerful interests.
The party confirmed plans to appeal and indicated that sentencing has been set for 23 January 2026.
Community Reactions
EFF supporters have framed the outcome as a direct attack on communities they represent. “This is not just about Malema; it is about silencing the poor and the landless,” one supporter said outside the court.
On social media, messages of solidarity poured in, with many calling Malema’s guilty verdict unjust. Within the party’s ranks, leaders reiterated that they will not be deterred, encouraging fighters and ground forces to remain committed to economic freedom.
The case has become more than a trial, it is now a rallying point for debates about fairness, justice, and political influence in South Africa’s courts.
