JULIUS MALEMA: LEGAL ENTITLEMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS ETHICAL FITNESS FOR OFFICE

Recent court developments concerning Julius Malema raise a question that is larger than one politician. 

In October 2025 he was convicted on five firearm-related charges arising from the 2018 Mdantsane rally. He has since been sentenced to five years’ direct imprisonment, additional penalties were ordered to run concurrently, he has been declared unfit to possess a firearm, the court granted leave to appeal his sentence, refused leave to appeal his conviction, and he remains out on warning pending the appeal. 

The legal position should therefore be stated accurately. Section 47(1)(e) of the Constitution disqualifies a person from the National Assembly if convicted and sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine, but it also expressly provides that no one is regarded as sentenced until an appeal against conviction or sentence has been determined, or the time for appeal has expired. 

Parliament’s own website still lists Mr Malema as an MP and as a National Assembly representative on the Judicial Service Commission. 

So the narrow legal question is not especially difficult: as matters presently stand, he may remain. But the ethical question is harder and, in my view, more important. The law sets the minimum threshold for compulsory removal. It does not exhaust the higher standard that public office should demand.

A parliamentarian and national political leader should not measure his fitness for office only by the last procedural foothold that allows him to stay in place. Leadership in a constitutional democracy requires judgment, restraint, respect for institutions, and conduct that strengthens rather than weakens public trust.

That concern is sharper here because this matter does not stand entirely in isolation. 

In 2025, Parliament welcomed a High Court judgment upholding an ethics finding against Mr Malema in relation to his conduct during a JSC interview, affirming that MPs remain bound by ethical duties even when serving on outside constitutional bodies. 

In separate proceedings that same year, the Equality Court found that certain statements made by him constituted hate speech and were made with a clear intention to incite harm and promote hatred. 

Whether one supports Mr Malema’s politics or opposes them is not the point. Civil society organisations have already argued that his continued role on the JSC undermines public confidence in the judicial selection process. At the very least, every South African who cares about the integrity of institutions should pause at that concern. 

None of this means denying him his appeal rights. He is entitled to every remedy the law allows. But the right to appeal is not the same as a right to occupy every leadership position while the country waits for finality. Constitutional culture is weakened when public figures insist on the bare minimum they can retain, rather than the higher duty they owe.

The legal position would appear to be straightforward. Julius Malema should step aside immediately from the JSC and resign from Parliament and party leadership until the legal process has run its course. If he is later vindicated, he can seek public office again. But for now, remaining in high office after a criminal conviction, a sentence of direct imprisonment, an upheld ethics finding, and a separate hate-speech ruling is incompatible with the dignity and responsibility of leadership. 

This should not be reduced to race. Nor should it turn on whether one approves of the EFF’s ideology. The same standard should apply to every public representative, whatever their party, popularity, or constituency. The rule of law only retains moral force when it is matched by equal standards of public ethics.

South Africa deserves leaders who do not merely survive the law’s minimum requirements, but honour the spirit of constitutional accountability.