Shebeshxt’s lawyer accuses Polokwane court of unfair hearing during bail application

Lekompo musician Lehlohonolo “Shebeshxt” Chauke’s lawyer accused the Polokwane Magistrate’s Court of treating his client unfairly on Wednesday.

It occurred during Chauke’s cross-examination in his second bail application on new facts.

Advocate Mutheiwana Sikhwari claimed the court and the state were not giving Chauke, also known as Shebe Maburna, a fair hearing.

Presiding magistrate Godfrey Netshiozwi and state prosecutor advocate Kgaugelo Lekoloane rejected the claim.

Chauke has been in custody since his arrest in November last year.

The magistrate court and the high court dismissed his earlier bail applications several times.

He faces 21 charges, including four counts of attempted murder, unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, and culpable homicide.

The hearing was scheduled to run from Monday to Thursday.

On Tuesday, Chauke’s testimony was paused to make room for a ballistics expert.

Sikhwari says the court treated Chauke unfairly

Sikhwari argued that Chauke had already answered the question put to him by the state.

He said the court and the state were cross-examining his client unfairly. “I really think that this court is becoming unfair to this witness and giving him an unfair hearing,” Sikhwari claimed.

He asked the court to record the defence’s objection, even if it was overruled.

“The court may overrule the objection but the record will reflect that we are objecting to this conduct of proceedings [and] the way this witness is being treated,” Sikhwari added.

Sikhwari also accused the magistrate of defending the prosecutor.

He said the court should have told the state to stop reading the paragraph in parts.

“If the state put things in a manner that is objectionable, the court must simply uphold the objection and tell the state,” Sikhwari stated.

He added that the court stopped him when he wanted a complete reading.

He also said the state had never asked Chauke to read the whole paragraph himself.

Sikhwari criticised the court for overruling his objection but then saying Chauke, whom he called a “layman”, had to pick out the answer from the paragraph.

How the dispute over paragraph 20 began

The clash started when Lekoloane told the court that Chauke’s claim in his founding affidavit was incorrect.

In it, Chauke alleged that the regional court denied him the right to bail.

Chauke replied that the answer was in paragraph 20 of his supplementary affidavit.

Lekoloane then read only one line of that paragraph.

It said Chauke had not applied for bail since 10 additional charges were added at the regional court on 15 May 2026.

Sikhwari objected and argued that reading one line would confuse his client.

“We should read the whole paragraph in its context, because he (Chauke) said ‘my answer is in the entire paragraph 20’,” said Sikhwari.

He added that reading only the start of a paragraph was meant to contradict what the full paragraph said.

Magistrate rejects bias claim

Netshiozwi overruled the objection. He said Chauke’s own reference to the paragraph was not enough.

“Merely saying that my answer is in paragraph 20 does not imply the whole of paragraph 20… it should be a complete statement which has been set by the witness,” Netshiozwi stated.

Lekoloane then turned to the last line of paragraph 18.3 in the founding affidavit.

It said Chauke was denied the legal right to apply for bail on the added charges.

Chauke explained that the supplementary affidavit was meant to correct or delete parts of the founding affidavit.

“The supplementary affidavit is answering what is raised regarding paragraph 18.3,” Chauke said.

Lekoloane rejected that answer and told Chauke to show him where in paragraph 20 his answers were.

He added that Chauke could simply say if he did not wish to answer.

Netshiozwi rejected the unfair treatment claim and said the state was not making anything up.

He said the state was only referring the witness to his own affidavits.

“The state is not challenging him, it’s instead referring him to the same paragraph 20, for him to read what is that which he considers as the answer,” Netshiozwi responded.

The magistrate said it was Chauke’s responsibility to point to the relevant part of a long paragraph.

Netshiozwi and Lekoloane both denied any bias, and the court said Sikhwari could apply for a recusal if he wished.

Chauke explains the regional court referral

Lekoloane later read the full paragraph 20 to the court. It stated that the regional court refused to hear Chauke’s bail application on 10 September 2026 because it was handling his trial.

The regional court referred him back to the district court.

Chauke agreed that this was his answer. He explained that he had misunderstood the earlier question, because the ruling was a referral and not a denial.

Lekoloane accepted this explanation.

Chauke also confirmed that bail had already been decided on the charges he arrived with at the regional court.

These came from the Lebowakgomo regional court, the Polokwane district court and the Mankweng court.

Chauke questions the timing of the added charges

Chauke maintained that his charges were not reinstated in the correct way. He said his first bail application on new facts focused on claims that he bribed officials.

According to Chauke, the promised arrests of those officials never happened.

He said his current concern was different. “In this bail on new facts, my concern is that why was I not charged with all these charges when I was being charged previously with the other charges,” Chauke stated.

Chauke believed the police had planned the timing of the new charges. “It’s as if they waited for me to go to the regional court and then charge me with these additional charges,” he said.

He told the court that officials informed him of the first added charges in the court holding cells. He was only told of the later charges while he was in court.

Lekoloane asked what the court would say about 21 charges after it refused him bail on nine. Chauke urged the court to keep one point in mind.

“We need to bear in mind that these are still charges of which I’m not convicted of and still going to face trial on,” Chauke said.

The court is set to make a bail decision on Thursday, 29 November 2026.