A cloudy Tuesday morning on July 8 seemed to reflect the mood in the packed White River Magistrate’s Court as the judgment in Marco Schalekamp’s bail application was delivered.

Schalekamp’s application was dismissed after Magistrate Nakedi Malomane ruled that he had failed to prove the existence of exceptional circumstances that would justify his release on bail.

He stands accused of premeditated murder and attempted murder following the fatal shooting of Pieter Burger and the wounding of Arno van Niekerk near the White River Rugby Club in the early hours of June 5. Schalekamp himself sustained gunshot wounds in the shoot-out that shocked the quiet Lowveld town.

ALSO READ: Schalekamp bail ruling postponed as court weighs conflicting testimonies

The court confirmed that the person who shot Schalekamp remains unidentified – a fact that has sparked speculation on social media and suggestions that another arrest may be forthcoming. However, investigating officer Sergeant Mxolisi Keis confirmed he is in possession of a docket aimed at determining who fired the shots that injured Schalekamp.

Malomane noted in her judgment that there was no dispute over the charge being a Schedule 6 offence. She emphasised that the onus rested on Schalekamp to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would make his release in the interest of justice.

ALSO READ: WHITE RIVER SHOOTING: Defence disputes ‘monster’ image of Schalekamp

The defence argued that they had previously been told the matter would be classified as a Schedule 5 offence. However, the magistrate stated:

“The State’s response was that, based on the facts in the docket and in consultation with the investigating officer, the murder charge is one of premeditation. The court therefore ruled it is a Schedule 6 bail application.”

Malomane continued: “The applicant seeks relief on the grounds that exceptional circumstances exist, which warrant his release. He maintains that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.”

In her assessment, Malomane pointed out that Schalekamp had been admitted to a private hospital following the shooting but discharged himself before his arrest. She said his reasons for doing so remained unclear, especially given the severity of the injuries he claimed to have sustained.

ALSO READ: Tensions mount as court weighs Schalekamp’s bail application

The magistrate also considered his pattern of international travel, noting that his frequent trips to undisclosed destinations rendered him a potential flight risk.

During proceedings, Schalekamp argued that he was the primary caregiver of his five-year-old son and submitted this as a factor in favour of bail. However, the court was unconvinced.

“While the court takes the rights of children seriously,” Malomane said, “it remains unclear who cares for the child when the applicant is abroad. He failed to take the court into his confidence regarding the child’s whereabouts and safety, and was evasive in this regard. The court therefore does not accept this as an exceptional circumstance.”

Read more in Thursday’s Lowvelder.