The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has welcomed the five-year direct imprisonment sentence handed to EFF leader Julius Malema, describing it as a necessary step in reinforcing accountability for firearm-related offences in South Africa.

This comes as the East London Magistrates’ Court granted Malema leave to appeal his sentence, allowing him to take the matter to a higher court while remaining out on warning.

The NPA said that although the state had argued for a harsher 15-year prison term, it believes the five-year sentence will serve as an effective deterrent.

“The sentence will have the desired effect of deterrence against would-be offenders in firearm-related offences, which are prevalent in the country,” the authority said.

Malema was convicted for offences linked to a 2018 EFF rally in Mdantsane, where he discharged a firearm in a public space. The court found him guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, as well as reckless endangerment.

He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm and two years for possession of ammunition. In addition, he was fined R20,000 for discharging a firearm in a built-up area and another R20,000 for failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent harm. The court ordered that the additional sentences run concurrently with the five-year term and declared him unfit to possess a firearm.

Eastern Cape Director of Public Prosecutions Barry Madolo said the outcome underscores the principle that all citizens are equal before the law, regardless of their political standing.

“The conviction and sentencing reaffirm the NPA’s commitment to upholding the rule of law without fear, favour or prejudice,” he said.

The case, which was pursued with the involvement of AfriForum, has remained in the public spotlight due to Malema’s high-profile position and the broader political implications.

Despite the ruling, Malema struck a defiant tone outside the courthouse, where hundreds of supporters had gathered. Addressing the crowd, he rejected the judgment and described the case as politically motivated.

He also launched a scathing attack on the presiding magistrate, Twanet Olivier, alleging bias and claiming the magistrate was racist — an allegation he did not provide evidence for during his address. He referred to her as a “racist of note”. Malema also accused Olivier of poorly reading and writing the judgment, stating that she does not read. He also made comments suggesting that she is a member of AfriForum.

“The fight is not over,” Malema told supporters, who responded with chants and songs, creating a charged but controlled atmosphere outside the court.

His legal team had argued that there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal, a position the court ultimately accepted in granting leave to appeal, despite opposition from the state.

Meanwhile, opposition parties were quick to weigh in on the judgment, with brief but pointed reactions.

The Democratic Alliance said the ruling demonstrates that no individual is above the law and that accountability must apply equally to all public representatives.

ActionSA, led by Herman Mashaba, said the sentence sends a strong message about the consequences of reckless conduct involving firearms, particularly by those in leadership positions.

On the ground, the South African Police Service confirmed that it had been monitoring gatherings across the country linked to the court proceedings. Thousands of EFF supporters assembled outside courts in various provinces, but authorities reported no incidents.

SAPS spokesperson Athlenda Mathe said public order policing units remain deployed to ensure stability.

“Despite heightened emotions, marches have taken place without incidents. This reflects a shared commitment to upholding the rule of law,” Mathe said.

Police added that the situation remains calm and that gatherings have been peaceful and orderly throughout the day.

As the case moves to the appeals stage, it is expected to remain a focal point in South Africa’s political and legal landscape, raising ongoing questions about leadership accountability, the independence of the judiciary, and the enforcement of firearm laws.