Key Takeaways
- Adriaan Snyman, former bodyguard of EFF leader Julius Malema, is suing the South African state for R20 million after being acquitted of charges related to a 2018 firearms incident.
- During the EFF’s fifth‑birthday celebration at Sisa Dukashe Stadium, Malema fired a handgun 15 times and a rifle 7 times into the air; video evidence shows Snyman approaching him shortly after the shots.
- Both men were charged with several firearms‑related offences, but Snyman was acquitted in October 2025, while Malema still faces a possible prison sentence that could cost him his Parliamentary seat.
- Snyman’s spokesperson claims the state dropped the charges due to lack of evidence and characterizes the case as a malicious prosecution, prompting a formal demand for compensation and the threat of legal action if the NPA and SAPS do not respond.
- Malema’s sentencing hearing has been postponed, with the state seeking up to 15 years imprisonment; a sentence exceeding 12 months without a fine would trigger the loss of his Parliamentary seat under South African law.
- The outcome of both the civil claim against the state and Malema’s criminal sentencing will have significant political ramifications for the EFF and could influence public perceptions of accountability for public‑figure conduct.
Background of the Incident
In July 2018 the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) marked its fifth anniversary with a rally at Sisa Dukashe Stadium in the Eastern Cape. Julius Malema, the party’s charismatic leader, took centre stage during the celebrations and, in front of a large crowd, discharged firearms into the air. A video of the episode quickly spread across social media, capturing Malema firing a handgun 15 times followed by seven shots from a rifle. After the rifle volley, Malema rejoined other delegates on stage and was no longer seen holding the weapon. The footage also shows Adriaan Snyman, who at the time served as Malema’s personal bodyguard, moving toward the leader shortly after the shots were fired. The public nature of the discharge, combined with the prominence of the individuals involved, prompted immediate scrutiny from law‑enforcement agencies and sparked a debate over the responsible use of firearms at political gatherings.
Details of Julius Malema’s Actions
The video evidence presented by prosecutors and later referenced in court documents confirms that Malema discharged a total of 22 rounds: 15 from a handgun and 7 from a rifle. The shots were fired upward into the sky, a practice sometimes employed for celebratory purposes but nevertheless constituting the discharge of a firearm in a public place. Although no injuries were reported directly from the gunfire, the act raised safety concerns because the projectiles could have fallen unpredictably, endangering bystanders or damaging property. The prosecution argued that Malema’s conduct demonstrated a reckless disregard for public safety, especially given the large assembly of party supporters, journalists, and security personnel present at the stadium.
Charges Against Julius Malema and Adriaan Snyman
Based on the incident, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) levied a series of charges against both men. Julius Malema faced the following counts: unlawful possession of a rifle and an unknown firearm (only Malema), unlawful possession of ammunition (only Malema), discharging a firearm in a public place (only Malema), failure to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to persons or property (both Malema and Snyman), and reckless endangerment to persons or property (only Malema). Adriaan Snyman was charged with failure to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to persons or property (shared with Malema) and providing a firearm or ammunition to a person not permitted to possess it (solely Snyman). The charges reflected the state’s attempt to address both the actual discharge of weapons and the alleged facilitation of Malema’s access to the rifle.
Proceedings and Acquittal of Adriaan Snyman
The case proceeded through the magistrate’s court system, with both men appearing together initially. After a thorough examination of the evidence—including the viral video, witness testimony, and forensic reports—the court found insufficient proof to sustain the allegations against Snyman. In October 2025 he was acquitted of all charges, a decision his legal team welcomed as vindication. The acquittal hinged on the prosecution’s inability to demonstrate that Snyman had knowingly supplied Malema with the rifle or that he had failed to take reasonable precautions beyond what any reasonable bodyguard might have done in the chaotic moments following the celebratory gunfire. The judgment underscored the high burden of proof required in criminal matters and highlighted evidentiary gaps that hampered the state’s case against the former bodyguard.
Statements from Snyman’s Spokesperson
Following the acquittal, Snyman’s spokesperson, Kirsten McLeod, spoke to the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) to clarify the legal position. She asserted that the state had effectively dropped the charges against Snyman because there was no credible evidence linking him to wrongdoing. McLeod added that Snyman’s legal representatives had issued a written demand for more than R20 million in damages to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the South African Police Service (SAPS), citing malicious prosecution. She noted that the 30‑day period allotted for a response had expired without reply, prompting the intention to institute formal legal action. If the authorities continued to neglect the demand, McLeod warned that her team would seek a default judgment, thereby compelling the state to pay the claimed amount without further litigation.
Malema’s Sentencing Hearing and Potential Consequences
While Snyman walked free, Julius Malema remains exposed to criminal liability. His sentencing hearing, originally scheduled for the morning after a full day of final arguments, was postponed to Thursday to allow the court additional time to consider submissions. The state is pressing for a custodial sentence of up to 15 years imprisonment. South African law stipulates that if a public representative receives a prison term exceeding 12 months without the option of a fine, they automatically lose their seat in Parliament. Consequently, a sentence longer than a year would not only affect Malema’s personal liberty but also jeopardize his legislative mandate and possibly influence the internal dynamics of the EFF, which relies heavily on his leadership and parliamentary presence.
Legal Strategy and Demand for Damages
Snyman’s legal team is pursuing a civil claim grounded in the tort of malicious prosecution. To succeed, they must prove that the state instituted criminal proceedings without reasonable and probable cause, acted with malice, and that the proceedings terminated in Snyman’s favour. The acquittal provides the factual element of favourable termination; the focus now lies on demonstrating the absence of evidentiary basis and any improper motive behind the prosecution. The demanded R20 million reflects calculation of damages for reputational harm, legal costs, loss of earnings, and emotional distress stemming from the protracted criminal process. Should the court award such damages, it would represent a notable financial penalty on state institutions and could serve as a deterrent against overly aggressive prosecutorial tactics in politically sensitive cases.
Implications for the EFF and Political Ramifications
The parallel trajectories of Snyman’s civil suit and Malema’s criminal sentencing carry broader implications for the Economic Freedom Fighters. Malema’s possible incarceration would remove a key figure from parliamentary debate and could weaken the EFF’s legislative efficacy, especially in votes where his presence is pivotal. Conversely, a successful damages claim by Snyman might be framed by opponents as evidence of state overreach, thereby energising the party’s narrative of victimisation and reinforcing its populist rhetoric. Moreover, the case highlights the tension between maintaining public order at political events and protecting individual rights to bear arms—a debate that resonates beyond the EFF and may influence future policy discussions on firearm regulation at mass gatherings.
Conclusion and Outlook
The July 2018 stadium incident has evolved into a multifaceted legal saga involving criminal culpability, civil liability, and political consequence. Adriaan Snyman’s acquittal cleared him of the specific charges laid by the state, yet his claim for R20 million underscores his belief that the prosecution was unwarranted and harmful. Julius Malema’s looming sentencing hinges on whether the court deems his celebratory gunfire sufficiently reckless to warrant a custodial term that would strip him of his parliamentary seat. As both proceedings advance, their outcomes will not only affect the individuals directly involved but also shape public perceptions of accountability, the limits of prosecutorial discretion, and the stability of one of South Africa’s most outspoken political forces. The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether the state faces a substantial financial judgment and whether the EFF must contend with the potential loss of its foremost parliamentary advocate.