Magistrate asks Shebe Maburna’s lawyer to stop looking at ballistics expert during bail hearing

The presiding magistrate in lekompo musician Lehlohonolo “Shebeshxt” or “Shebe Maburna” Chauke’s bail hearing asked his lawyer, Advocate Mutheiwana Sikhwari, to stop looking directly at a defence witness on Tuesday.

Sikhwari rejected the request and said it cast doubt on his good faith.

The exchange took place at the Polokwane Magistrate’s Court while state prosecutor Advocate Kgaugelo Lekoloane was cross-examining ballistics expert Jan Christophell de Klerk.

Chauke’s own cross-examination had been paused so the expert could testify.

Chauke is applying for bail on new facts and faces 21 charges linked to an alleged shooting in Ladanna in October 2025.

Magistrate raises concern about eye contact with witness

Magistrate Godfrey Netshiozwi interrupted the cross-examination to tell Sikhwari that De Klerk appeared uneasy.

According to the magistrate, the expert’s focus seemed to slip whenever the lawyer stared at him.

“Advocate Sikhwari, I would advise when you glaringly look at the witness directly in the eyes, I see he seems to appear distracted. Can you just avoid looking at him? He looks distracted when you start looking at him,” said Netshiozwi.

The magistrate made it clear that he was not accusing the lawyer of any wrongdoing.

“I’m not saying you did anything, but when you look at a person straight in the eye, there is a distraction,” he added.

Netshiozwi later asked De Klerk directly whether he had been distracted.

The expert replied that he had not noticed anything.

Defence lawyer objects to the request

Sikhwari refused to look away or turn to face another direction. He argued that doing so would suggest he was guiding the witness through his testimony.

The lawyer said he had not realised he was looking at De Klerk at all, explaining that it was his habit to watch whoever was speaking.

“I was not even aware that I was looking at the witness. My tradition is always to focus in order to concentrate on the person who is speaking,” Sikhwari stated.

He added that looking away would disrupt his note-taking and could harm Chauke’s chances.

According to Sikhwari, the court’s remark could create the wrong impression.

“This issue raised by the court creates an impression that maybe I’m guiding the witness, if that’s the insinuation it must be dispelled from the onset,” he said.

Sikhwari suggested that the court simply ask the witness whether he was uncomfortable, but Netshiozwi said this was unnecessary.

The lawyer then told the court that the request put his good faith in doubt, and he strongly objected to it.

“I’ve never heard it in my whole career where the court tells a counsel to look that way, and not look at the witness,” Sikhwari argued.

Expert questions state’s evidence on the shooting

Earlier in the day, De Klerk testified that Sikhwari Attorneys had instructed him to review the evidence on the events of 19 October 2025.

This covers count 1, which includes charges 1 to 4. Petrus Ralefetane is the complainant in those charges, and in the overall case.

Sikhwari said the expert was called to show the strengths and weaknesses of the state’s case.

De Klerk criticised the way the vehicle in the case was photographed and documented.

“It is my professional opinion that the photographs and written documentation relating to the vehicle as recorded by warrant officer M.F Kogobe in the photographic album is materially deficient and does not in my opinion adequately document several items of potential forensic significance,” De Klerk testified.

He told the court that he had found no forensic ballistic report in the material given to him.

He also said there were no corroborating statements confirming that a firearm was discharged that morning, including from the complainant’s driver.

“The material provided does not appear to contain documentation addressing the examination of any firearm, fired cartridge cases, fired projectile bullet defects, bullet fragments or any other physical evidence potentially associated with the alleged discharge of a firearm,” De Klerk claimed.

De Klerk also questioned the medical evidence.

He said the doctor described the injuries only as puncture wounds, and the J88 and medical report contained no definitive diagnosis of a gunshot wound.

“Had these injuries exhibited definitive characteristics of a projectile wound, the examining doctor would have noted them as such. The description of puncture wound is highly ambiguous,” he explained.

He further testified that the damage to the headrest and the wounds did not line up.

He said the shot could have come from inside the vehicle cabin or through the open front passenger-side window, rather than from the rear window.

“The head rest defects and the head wounds find this trajectory highly unlikely. The victim simply could not have turned his head and body in such a way that aligns with the angle whilst in the front passenger side,” he added.

State challenges the expert’s independence

During cross-examination, Lekoloane got De Klerk to concede several points.

The expert testified that he had not visited the scene and was never asked to reconstruct it.

He also admitted that he did not have the complainant’s medical records or X-rays, and his report made no reference to the recovered bullet jacket.

His opinion rested on only 48 pages of PDF files.

Lekoloane argued that the defence had chosen what material De Klerk received.

“They are the ones who chose and picked what to give to you so that you can execute the mandate that they employed you to do,” Lekoloane said.

De Klerk pushed back, saying that if the state had evidence of bias, it should present it, and he would amend his report if it changed his findings.

The prosecutor refused.

“Unfortunately, I’m not going to give you anything. We did not commission you to do any forensic work for us as the state,” Lekoloane responded.

Lekoloane also argued that the expert had formed his opinion on assumptions and incomplete information.

De Klerk disagreed, saying his opinion was based on what he had been given.

He added that the bullet jacket would not have changed his findings.

The bail hearing continues.