Expert gives evidence in Malema’s firearms discharge case

EFF leader Julius Malema’s firearm discharge case returned to the East London Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, with Malema’s bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman, calling lawyer and firearm expert Martin Hood as his first witness.

Following the 2018 incident, Malema and Snyman are facing charges including unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition and contravening the Firearms Control Act.

Hood gave the court a breakdown of the Firearms Control Act, testifying there were no provisions that made it impossible for a person who did not have a firearm licence to handle a gun.

Malema is charged with contravening the provisions of this act, while his bodyguard is charged with handing out a firearm to an unlicensed user (Malema).

Hood said he was not a ballistics expert, but someone who had contributed heavily to the drafting of part of the Firearms Control Act, which has no provisions against unlicensed individuals storing or keeping a firearm, adding that he could not tell the difference between a real firearm and what he described as a “blank firing object”.

“Once a company is registered with the authority PSiRA (Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority), and the professional hunting associations, organisations that are lobby organisations for firearms rights, and as I indicated, I have in the past, on numerous occasions been asked by police commissioners and heads of portfolio committees to make representations and inputs into policy and legislation relating to firearms ... I am saying in my experience, I have never seen this section which prohibits someone from handling a fire arm. Section 22 permits it. Regulation 21 permits it. And there are other examples that permit it, if I had to apply my mind,” he said.

Hood said there were also other provisions that made it possible for an unlicensed individual to keep or store somebody else’s firearm.

“There is a provision called SAP 539, which is contained in regulation 36, for the storage and possession of somebody else’s firearm ... I said I have never seen this section applied to the owner of the firearm licence or the responsible person of a security company,” he said.

Before the matter was postponed, the court dismissed an application to have the trial thrown out of court, under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, citing lack of sufficient evidence to prosecute.

The State has now closed its case and the defence began its evidence with Hood taking the stand as part of their evidence as their first witness.

The matter was adjourned for the day.

Cape Times