The show of support is spreading well beyond KuGompo City. EFF supporters are descending on the Mpumalanga High Court in a solidarity gathering for their leader, who is currently in the dock hundreds of kilometres away in the Eastern Cape. Reports suggest similar scenes are playing out across other parts of the country.

Olivier has adjourned proceedings. The court will resume at 10:45 when Cesar will begin presenting the state’s heads of argument.

State prosecutor Advocate Joel Cesar told the court he is ready to present his heads of argument. “We must get this over and done with, Your Worship. I am ready,” Cesar said. Olivier confirmed that Hodes will be allowed to reply once Cesar has finished.

Hodes has concluded his argument for the defence. He urged the court to take an individualised approach to sentencing, arguing that the state’s case rests on authorities that are either distinguishable or drawn from far more serious circumstances.

Hodes says the state has cherry-picked cases involving either minimum sentencing legislation or extreme aggravating circumstances — such as robbery, violent crime, obliterated serial numbers, and multiple firearms — and tried to apply the same reasoning to a case that is “factually far less serious.” He told the court: “We submit that approach is incorrect.” He also noted the state concedes in its own supplementary heads that minimum sentence legislation does not apply to this case.

Hodes has challenged the state’s claim that the probation officer conceded all firearm possession cases must result in direct imprisonment. He took the court to the record, arguing that no such concession was made. He says the probation officer confirmed that “circumstances differ from case to case” and that most cases she had seen involved firearm possession linked to other, broader criminal conduct.

Hodes is now turning his fire on the state’s heads of argument. He says the prosecution has made a “self-defeating and mutually exclusive argument” — on the one hand calling Malema an ordinary accused who should be treated like anyone else, and on the other highlighting his position as a political leader to justify harsher treatment. “That is the conundrum that arises in the state’s approach,” he said. He added that the state also relies on public outcry from civil society to argue for imprisonment, which he says contradicts their claim that Malema should be treated ordinarily.

Hodes is making his central argument: all five charges stem from a single incident lasting no more than two minutes, with no injuries and no property damage. “To impose a custodial sentence for a single, brief incident of this nature would be disproportionate and inappropriate,” he told the court. He is pushing for a non-custodial sentence.

Hodes has cited a recent Eastern Cape case in which a security guard in his 60s shot two young people aged 13 — killing one and injuring the other — and received a fully suspended sentence. He told the court that even in that case, involving murder and attempted murder, the judge found that the circumstances justified a sentence less severe than direct imprisonment and that the offender did not present a continuing danger to society.

Hodes is now arguing that imprisonment does not always achieve rehabilitation. He told the court that “evidence suggests that prisons rarely rehabilitate individuals and may contribute to further criminalisation and cycles of reoffending.” He says the accused does not pose a danger to society that would justify incarceration.

Hodes is taking the court through comparable cases where firearm discharge did not result in imprisonment. He cited a case in which a man fired a Glock pistol under a table in a packed restaurant of 220 people — no one was hurt but there was damage. That accused received three years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended. He also pointed to a case involving two intoxicated police officers who shot at someone in a public area and received partially suspended sentences with fines. Hodes says these cases show that discharge offences do not automatically attract incarceration.

Hodes is making a key point about the firearm itself. He says social worker Thompson highlighted that Malema obtained the rifle from someone likely affiliated with security services — meaning it was a licensed firearm. Malema borrowed it solely for the celebratory event, possessed it only for the duration of the shots — estimated at less than one minute — and returned it to its lawful custodian immediately afterwards. Hodes stressed Malema did not acquire the firearm illegally or with any intent to commit further crimes.

Hodes has pushed back on any suggestion that Malema’s lack of remorse should count against him. He told the court that the magistrate herself placed on record that “people are entitled to plead not guilty; that is their right.” He says Thompson agreed with this when it was put to her as a clarifying question, at page 162 of the record.

Hodes is now summarising the pre-sentencing report compiled by social worker Jessie Thompson, who testified on 23 January. He says Thompson found that while Malema continues to assert his innocence, she was of the view that he “regrets the incident and the consequent result that people might perceive it as encouragement to handle firearms recklessly.”

Hodes is addressing Malema’s personal circumstances. He told the court that Malema, now 45, was 37 at the time of the offences. He has no prior convictions and has “led a blameless life.” There have been no further incidents since 2018, Hodes added.

Hodes has outlined the five charges Malema was convicted of: unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, discharging a firearm in a built-up area, failure to take reasonable precautions to avoid danger, and reckless endangerment. He says he will not read the full heads of argument into the record.

Hodes has taken issue with the state’s conduct, telling the court the prosecution filed supplementary heads of argument on Thursday 9 April — just four court days ago — with no application for condonation and no explanation. “No application for condonation was made, nor was any explanation provided,” he said.

Advocate Laurance Hodes, for the defence, is on his feet. He is setting out the procedural background — noting the defence filed its heads of argument on 31 March and the state filed its heads on 1 April. He confirmed the state has formally closed its case and will not lead any evidence in aggravation of sentence.

Magistrate Twanet Olivier has just entered the courtroom. All rise.

Malema is now inside the courtroom. Proceedings are expected to get under way shortly.

Julius Malema has just arrived at the magistrate’s court in KuGompo City flanked by his legal team and senior EFF leadership. He did not address the media on his way in.

Thousands of EFF supporters clad in red berets and party regalia have massed outside the courthouse. Many camped overnight following last night’s vigil. Police have deployed a heavy security cordon around the perimeter.