Julius Malema Convicted in Gun Case Amid U.S. Political Spotlight
South African firebrand politician Julius Malema has been found guilty of gun-related charges—just weeks after a separate hate speech conviction—amid heightened international scrutiny following a controversial Oval Office incident involving former U.S. President Donald Trump.
Timeline of Legal Troubles
- September 2025: Malema convicted of hate speech for leading chants of “Kill the Boer,” a historic anti-apartheid protest slogan.
- October 1, 2025: Found guilty on gun possession charges in a Pretoria court.
- Earlier in 2025: Trump screens a video montage of Malema at the White House during a meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Trump’s Role in the Spotlight
During a high-profile meeting with President Cyril Ramaphosa, Donald Trump accused Malema of inciting violence against white South African farmers. He played a video clip showing Malema leading supporters in the chant “Kill the Boer”—a phrase rooted in apartheid-era resistance but now deemed inflammatory by many.
Malema has since claimed that his legal woes are politically motivated, alleging pressure from Washington following Trump’s public condemnation.
Legal Charges at a Glance
| Charge | Date of Conviction | Potential Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| Hate Speech | September 2025 | Up to 3 years |
| Illegal Firearm Possession | October 1, 2025 | Up to 15 years |
Who Is Julius Malema?
[INTERNAL_LINK:Julius Malema] is the leader of South Africa’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), a far-left political party known for its radical land reform policies and confrontational style. Once a rising star in the ruling African National Congress (ANC), Malema was expelled in 2012 and founded the EFF in 2013.
International Reactions
While the South African government has not officially condemned Malema or the “Kill the Boer” chant, human rights groups remain divided. Some view the phrase as historical resistance rhetoric; others argue it incites racial violence in today’s context.
U.S. State Department officials have not commented publicly on the convictions, but analysts suggest Trump’s intervention may have influenced judicial attention.
