R100k bail? The battle over Shebeshxt’s release

Musician Lehlohonolo Chauke, popularly known as Shebeshxt, faced off with the state in the High Court in Polokwane on Thursday over his second bid for bail.

After hearing extensive argument from both sides, the judge postponed the matter for judgment to 5 August 2026.

State says appellant recycled old facts

The state’s argument centred on whether Chauke’s new bail application relied on genuinely new information or repackaged what had already failed to persuade the court once before.

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”.

On Chauke’s claim that he urgently needed medical treatment, the state pointed out this had already featured in his first application. Counsel said: “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.”

According to the state, the correctional officer called to testify confirmed “there was no report made by the appellant seeking medical treatment,” undermining the claim that his needs were going unmet.

The state also cited case law to argue a detainee cannot approach the court simply because his “right to consult with a doctor of his own choice has been infringed,” and must first exhaust remedies with prison authorities.

Shebeshxt’s defence says correctional services dropped the ball

Defence counsel pushed back hard on the state’s framing, arguing it conflated two separate legal tests: establishing new facts and satisfying the higher threshold required for Schedule 6 offences.

Counsel argued the real new fact was not the collision itself but “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.”

Counsel also pointed to written correspondence that had gone unanswered. “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 further told the court that, as of the hearing date, “both his medical and psychological issues have not been attended to,” pointing the judge to a recent Western Cape ruling in which prolonged psychological deterioration in custody was found to justify bail.

Child’s birth and case transfer also debated

On the birth of Chauke’s child during his detention, defence resisted the comparison to the earlier pregnancy disclosure.

“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.

Defence also raised concerns about the magistrate who signed Chauke’s original arrest warrant later presiding 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.”

R100 000 bail offer confirmed, judgment set for next week

When questioned by the judge, the defence confirmed Chauke’s family and friends could support bail.

“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 court confirmed the case has separately been postponed to 10 September 2026 in the regional court for further representations, before judgment on the bail appeal is handed down on 5 August.