Malema conviction sparks legal storm as EFF challenges prosecutor’s conduct

A courtroom ruling in East London has quickly spilled into a wider legal and political battle, after the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) formally accused a senior state prosecutor of misconduct in the firearm case involving its leader.

The complaint follows the conviction of EFF president Julius Malema in the East London Regional Court, where he was found guilty of multiple firearm-related offences tied to an incident in KuGompo City.

What began as a high-profile criminal case is now turning into a separate fight over prosecutorial conduct, legal authority, and how evidence was handled.

The case behind the conviction

Malema’s conviction was handed down on 16 April 2026. The court found him guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, discharging a firearm in a public space, and reckless endangerment.

The case traces back to a widely circulated video from 2018, filmed during the EFF’s fifth anniversary rally at Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane. The footage showed Malema firing what appeared to be a rifle in front of thousands of supporters.

Following the ruling, he was sentenced to five years in prison, although he later achieved partial success on appeal.

EFF’s complaint against the prosecutor

The EFF has now taken aim at state prosecutor Advocate Joel Sesar, accusing him of overstepping his legal authority and misleading the court during proceedings.

In a formal complaint, the party argues that Sesar improperly authorised the return of a Norinco rifle (serial number SPA 249) a key exhibit in the case back to Tactical Security Services before any court order was issued.

The party says this action violated Section 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act and breached both the National Prosecuting Authority Act and its internal code of conduct.

In its view, the prosecutor acted beyond his legal powers and interfered with the proper administration of justice.

“The court, not the prosecutor, has that power”

The EFF’s legal team insists that only a court can decide the fate of evidence.

According to their submission dated 22 April 2026, the prosecutor had no authority to return the firearm, arguing that such decisions fall strictly under judicial control.

They say the actions amounted to “acting ultra vires” meaning beyond legal power and accused the prosecutor of effectively stepping into the role of the judiciary.

NPA responds cautiously

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has confirmed receipt of the complaint.

Spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago said the institution is currently reviewing the letter and processing it, but did not provide further detail.

For now, no disciplinary decision has been made.

Political tension meets legal scrutiny

The case has reignited debate about accountability within South Africa’s justice system, particularly in politically sensitive prosecutions.

Supporters of Malema argue the handling of the evidence raises serious questions about fairness, while critics say the complaint is an attempt to undermine a lawful conviction.

On social media, reactions have mirrored the country’s familiar political divide some calling for accountability across the board, others questioning whether the prosecution process was properly followed.

What happens next?

The EFF has urged the NPA to investigate the matter fully and take disciplinary action where necessary.

At the centre of it all remains a conviction tied to a viral video, a firearm, and a courtroom decision that continues to ripple far beyond the walls of the East London Regional Court.

For now, both the legal system and the political arena are watching closely because this case is no longer just about what happened on stage in 2018, but about how justice is handled years later in courtrooms across the country.