EFF leader Julius Malema’s five-year prison sentence for a 2018 incident at an EFF rally in Mdantsane has been described by legal experts as excessive, with some warning that it could be increased to as much as 10 years if a higher court finds the magistrate was “too lenient.”

Some experts say that, if a higher court reaches that conclusion, it may impose a harsher sentence on appeal.

Malema was sentenced on Thursday by Magistrate Twanet Olivier in the East London Magistrate’s Court in KuGompo City. 

He was, however, released on warning after filing an immediate appeal.

The State had argued for a harsher penalty. Prosecutor Advocate Joel Cesar asked the court to impose a sentence of up to 15 years’ imprisonment, or alternatively 10 years with three years suspended, along with fines on the remaining counts.

Malema was convicted in October 2025 on five counts under the Firearms Control Act. 

The charges relate to a 2018 EFF rally at Sisa Dukashe Stadium in Mdantsane, where he was seen on video firing what appeared to be a semi-automatic rifle into the air before a crowd of about 20,000 supporters.

The firearm belonged to a security company linked to his former bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman, who was acquitted due to a lack of evidence. 

The court heard that Snyman handed the weapon to Malema during the event.

Malema has consistently maintained that the firearm was a prop or blank gun and not capable of firing live ammunition.

Top Durban advocate Paul Jorgenson said that wule Malema’s decision to appeal his sentence was a “no brainer” there was a strong possibility the appeal court could significantly alter the outcome.

Jorgenson said that on appeal, Malema’s five-year prison sentence could potentially be replaced with a fine or a suspended sentence. He also questioned whether the trial court fully considered alternative sentencing options, saying: “I mean did the magistrate even consider correctional supervision.”

In his view, the sentence could ultimately be set aside by a higher court. However, he cautioned that the State may also pursue a cross-appeal seeking a harsher punishment.

“That is a strong possibility,” Jorgenson said, referring to the chance of a reduced or non-custodial sentence on appeal, while noting that the legal process could still work in either direction depending on arguments presented by both sides.

Speaking to IOL News, legal expert Malesela Komape of Komape Incorporated Attorneys said the sentence was “far-fetched” and likely to be overturned or reduced on appeal.

“The defence has shown that previous authorities support a non-custodial sentence in cases like this,” he said. 

“A five-year direct imprisonment is excessive, and there is a strong possibility that Mr Malema will succeed on appeal.”

Komape said the High Court would examine whether the magistrate erred in both conviction and sentencing. 

He pointed to inconsistencies in the treatment of the co-accused, saying that Snyman was initially found to have a case to answer under Section 174 but was later acquitted.

*This article was first published by IOL News