Polokwane — Popular Limpopo musician Lehlohonolo Chauke, widely known as Shebeshxt, returned to the High Court in Polokwane on Thursday in a renewed attempt to secure bail — but will have to wait another week for a decision.
After hearing extensive argument from both the state and the defence, the court postponed judgment in his second bail application to 5 August 2026.
The proceedings centred on a narrow but critical legal question: whether Chauke’s latest application introduced genuinely new facts, or merely reworked arguments that had already failed during his first bail attempt.
State: No New Grounds for Bail
The state argued that Chauke’s application did not meet the threshold required for a fresh bail bid, particularly given the seriousness of the charges he faces under Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Counsel for the state told the court the key issue was whether what Chauke presented amounted to “a mere reshuffling, embroidering of the already presented facts,” adding that if this was the finding, the appeal “ought to be dismissed”.
Central to the state’s argument was Chauke’s renewed claim that he urgently required medical attention while in custody. According to the prosecution, this was not new information.
Counsel reminded the court: “In the first bail application, the appellant stated how he was involved in the motor vehicle incident, and that he required further medical care and follow-ups. And he further stated that his further detention will hinder him in getting the required medical treatment.”
The state maintained that the matter of medical care had already been ventilated and rejected previously.
In addition, a correctional officer who testified during earlier proceedings reportedly confirmed “there was no report made by the appellant seeking medical treatment,” casting doubt on Chauke’s assertion that his health needs were being ignored.
The state further relied on case law to argue that an accused cannot approach the court solely because his “right to consult with a doctor of his own choice has been infringed,” and must first exhaust internal remedies within correctional services before seeking judicial intervention.
Defence: Authorities Failed to Assist
Chauke’s legal team forcefully rejected the state’s characterisation of the application.
Defence counsel argued that the prosecution had conflated two separate legal requirements: demonstrating new facts and satisfying the higher evidentiary threshold applicable to Schedule 6 offences.
According to the defence, the genuinely new development was not the underlying motor vehicle collision or initial injuries, but what followed during Chauke’s continued detention.
Counsel submitted that the material change lay in “the failure by the Department of Correctional Services to assist him while securing the medical and psychological attention that he was in so desperate need of.”
The defence further pointed to written correspondence allegedly ignored by prison authorities.
“Letters were written by my instructing attorney, Mr Michael Kumalo, recording that he requires this medical attention, and there was no response ever received. That’s on the papers, my lady. It’s in the record,” he told the court.
Counsel emphasised that as matters stood at the time of the hearing, “both his medical and psychological issues have not been attended to.”
In support of the argument, the defence referred the court to a recent Western Cape judgment in which prolonged psychological deterioration in custody was found to justify bail.
Birth of Child Raised as New Circumstance
Another issue placed before the court was the birth of Chauke’s child while he remained in detention.
The defence resisted comparisons with earlier proceedings in which his partner’s pregnancy had already been disclosed to the court.
“There’s still the emotional bond and the need to pay for that child once it’s born that arises from the birth. This appellant has not seen his child since the child was born on the 1st of December when he was in custody,” his lawyer argued.
Chauke’s counsel contended that the birth itself created new emotional and financial responsibilities that were distinct from merely informing the court of a pregnancy.
Magistrate’s Role Questioned
The defence also raised procedural concerns about the handling of Chauke’s original arrest.
Specifically, counsel questioned whether it was appropriate for the magistrate who signed the arrest warrant to later preside over his bail hearing.
“It would have been in the interest of justice if he took it so personally to there and then recuse himself, mero motu, and he ought to have done so.”
The submission suggested that the interests of justice may have required the magistrate to step aside to avoid any perception of bias.
Bail Offer of R100 000
During exchanges with the bench, the judge sought clarity on whether Chauke had the means and support structure to comply with bail conditions if released.
The defence confirmed that financial backing was available.
“The appellant is in a position to pay bail of R100 000… he’s got family and friends that have undertaken to support him to the extent of R100 000, and he would comply with any bail conditions… including but not limited to house arrest, where he could be monitored by the investigating officer,” Chauke’s defence stated.
The proposed conditions included house arrest and monitoring, aimed at addressing any concerns about flight risk or interference.
Judgment Pending
The High Court confirmed that judgment on the bail appeal will be delivered on 5 August 2026.
Separately, the underlying criminal matter has been postponed in the regional court to 10 September 2026 for further representations.
Until the High Court hands down its ruling, Chauke will remain in custody.
The outcome of the appeal will determine whether the musician will be released pending trial or continue to await the next phase of proceedings behind bars. The court’s decision will hinge on whether it accepts that the circumstances presented amount to genuinely new facts — or whether, as the state contends, the application simply repackages old arguments under a different guise.
