EFF leader Julius Malema and his bodyguard Adriaan Snyman inside East London Magistrates Court.
- The arms case of EFF leader Julius Malema and his bodyguard Adriaan Snyman has resumed at East London Magistrate.Court of Justice on Monday.
- The EFF leader faces charges of illegal possession of firearms, contravention of the Firearms Control Act, illegal possession of ammunition and reckless endangerment to person or property.
- Malema is accused of firing a rifle at the EFF’s fifth anniversary celebrations at the Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane in 2018.
The defense has questioned the authenticity of the video footage at the center of the state’s case against EFF leader Julius Malema and his bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman.
Malema and Snyman were charged with contravening the Firearms Control Act after video surfaced showing the EFF leader firing an automatic rifle at the Sisa Dukashe stadium in east London during a fifth birthday celebration. of the party in 2018.
Malema then handed the rifle to Snyman.
The duo appeared at East London Magistrates’ Court for the continuation of the trial which was postponed in September last year due to the unavailability of Malema’s lead lawyer, solicitor Laurence Hodes.
There was a slight delay caused by the load outage, which ended at 09:00, but the presiding magistrate, Twanet Olivier, said it took longer for the server to come on.
Attorney for the prosecution, Joel Ceaser, intended to play the video in court and later called two State witnesses whose evidence focused on the video.
READ | EFF cuts ties with IFP for sharing power in coalition municipalities
But Hodes and Snyman’s lead attorney, attorney Shane Matthews, objected to the video’s admissibility as evidence.
They argued that the State has not called the cameraman who captured the video to testify, which casts doubt on its authenticity.
Both defense attorneys agreed that the case could be dealt with through a trial within a trial.
EFF leader Julius Malema and his bodyguard Adriaan Snyman inside East London Magistrates Court.
News24 Johnnie Isaac
“There is no cameraman that has come and testified in court, that I took this video. There are several versions on social networks about the incident.
“The State has an obligation to prove that a document or, in this case, the video is authentic before it is used as evidence before Your Honor,” Hodes argued.
Matthews said the person who captured the video should have been brought in to testify and authenticate whether the video was actually captured in the stadium or tampered with after it was captured.
He added that during the recent floods in KwaZulu-Natal, a video was captured three years earlier that purported to show the flooding.
The State objected to the idea of a trial within a trial, and Ceaser instead advocated allowing the video as is.
He said the State would call two more witnesses whose testimony was based on the video.
Olivier adjourned the case while he considered whether to grant judgment within a trial.
It will resume at 12:30 on Tuesday due to the scheduled load outage.
