The court acknowledged that being kept from his family was difficult for Shebeshxt but stressed that this was not unique to him.
Picture: Cecilia Mogashoa
The Polokwane High Court ruled that missing time with his newborn child was a hardship shared by all awaiting-trial inmates, not a special circumstance justifying Lehlogonolo “Shebeshxt” Chauke’s release on bail.
The court on Wednesday dismissed Shebeshxt’s bail appeal.
Chauke, whose real name is Lehlogonolo “Shebe Maburna” Chauke, faces charges including attempted murder, culpable homicide, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and malicious damage to property.
A hardship shared by all inmates
The court acknowledged that being kept from his family was difficult for Chauke but stressed that this was not unique to him.
According to the judgment, “the inability to spend quality time with family, including his newborn child, is a circumstance that is a reality and consequence of his detention, flowing from the various charges he was facing, and unfortunately applies to all awaiting trial inmates.”
The judge went further to clarify Chauke’s role in the child’s life, stating plainly that “from the record, he is not the primary caregiver to his newborn.”
Referring to precedent set in S v M (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae), the court found that Chauke’s bond with his baby was that of a father rather than a caregiver.
The judge noted that “his relationship with his child is that of a father. Yes, he is special to the child, but he is not the primary caregiver,” adding that his life partner fulfilled that role instead.
No supporting evidence on the child’s wellbeing
The court also pointed out that Chauke had not brought any expert testimony to support his claim that his absence was harming his child.
No social worker or other professional had testified on the psychological impact of his detention on the infant. Because of this gap, the judge said his personal distress, while understandable, could not be elevated into the kind of exceptional circumstance the law required for bail on new facts.
Financial disclosures called into question
Beyond the family argument, the court raised concerns about Chauke’s financial disclosures.
It emerged that his life partner, whom he claimed was solely dependent on him, was actually employed by his business in a managerial position overseeing its finances.
The judge said Chauke had failed to explain his current earnings as a musician despite continuing to win awards while incarcerated, asking, “How much income was he currently generating as a musical star? How much of these funds were being utilised?”
Doubt was also raised over his claim that he had refunded fans for cancelled shows, since legal proceedings had been instituted against him for a refund he had not paid.
As the judgment put it, this left “the court in a position of uncertainty as to whether or not he was taking the court into his total confidence.”
Medical claims and delay arguments also rejected
Chauke’s team argued that an untreated leg injury and delays in his regional court trial also qualified as new facts warranting release.
The court disagreed on both counts. Instead, it noted that the musician’s medical condition had already been raised in his first bail application and that correctional services had never refused him treatment.
On the trial delays, the judge found the timeline from arrest to transfer had actually moved quickly compared to similar cases, dismissing claims that reluctant witnesses were stalling proceedings as “clearly speculated.”
Bail appeal dismissed
In its final ruling, the court found that Chauke had not met the threshold required under section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act to prove exceptional circumstances, nor the requirements of section 65(4).
The judgment concluded that “the order of the magistrate refusing the admission of the appellant’s bail cannot be said to have been wrong,” and stated that “the appeal against the refusal of bail is dismissed.”
