The musician initially said he never called the police incompetent.
Limpopo musician Lehlogonolo “Shebeshxt” Chauke appears in court. Picture: Review Online/Cecilia Mogashoa
Lekompo musician Lehlohonolo “Shebeshxt” Chauke first denied, then confirmed, that he accused police of incompetence during his bail application on new facts at the Polokwane Magistrate’s Court.
Chauke, also referred to as “Shebe Maburna”, contradicted himself on Thursday when he was cross-examined about his own affidavit.
The state prosecutor, Advocate Kgaugelo Lekoloane, said the document blamed bias or incompetence for the police’s failure to take a statement from Chauke’s friend, Lehlohonolo “Ntari” Molapo.
Chauke has been in custody since his arrest in November last year, and the magistrate’s court and the high court have dismissed his bail bids several times.
He faces charges, including attempted murder, linked to the shooting of Petros Ralefadana on 19 October 2025, allegedly at the XFuels petrol station in Ladanna.
Chauke changes his answer after tapes played
Chauke initially said he never called the police incompetent.
Lekoloane then told him he would have the court replay the recordings of the proceedings.
“No, Mr. Chauke, you can’t do that. You don’t want us to play the tapes, you can’t do that,” the prosecutor argued.
The court adjourned to listen to the tapes. When it returned, Chauke was asked which answer the court should accept.
He then stood by the affidavit. “When you asked me the question of the incompetence of the police at first, you were not referring to the affidavit. I stand by what is in the affidavit that the police are incompetent for not taking the statement of Molapo,” Chauke told the court.
Who is Molapo and why does he matter?
According to Chauke, Molapo was the last person he was with before his arrest.
He said Molapo was the “unknown passenger” mentioned in his docket. Molapo also signed a confirmatory affidavit supporting Chauke’s version.
Lekoloane said it only confirmed what Chauke had already said.
The two also share a history. Chauke said they were arrested together in 2022 over the illegal possession of a firearm.
The prosecutor said investigative officer Captain Makola testified at the first bail application that Molapo was an outstanding suspect in the reinstated matter.
Lekoloane added that Molapo had been evading arrest.
Chauke said he could not confirm that. “As to whether he’s evading the police or running away from the police, that is something I don’t know,” he stated.
Why Chauke did not mention Molapo earlier
Lekoloane said Chauke never mentioned Molapo to the police or the court until the bail application on new facts, which his current lawyer, Advocate Mutheiwana Sikhwari, brought.
The prosecutor said the police could not be incompetent for failing to take a statement from someone they did not know about.
Chauke said he was alone when he stopped at the XFuels petrol station, where police alleged the incident happened.
“I did not mention him because when I stopped at the fuel station, and where the police alleged the incident occurred in Ladanna, Ntari was not with me,” Chauke reiterated.
He said he only learned of the unknown passenger in the docket after receiving copies of his statements.
“Had they perhaps approached me, and asked me who the unknown passenger I was allegedly with was, then I would have told them,” he claimed.
Dispute over ballistic report
Lekoloane also questioned Chauke’s fourth new fact, that the state had no ballistic report linking the complainant’s injury to a gunshot.
Chauke relied on the opinion of his own expert, Christoll de Klerk.
He said the docket also lacked details of the firearm, the ammunition and X-rays of the injuries.
“The issue of not having a ballistic report by the state is not the only issue that shows that the state does not have a case against me,” Chauke claimed.
The defence objected, arguing it was unfair to question Chauke on matters the expert had already dealt with.
Lekoloane replied that Chauke himself had raised the expert’s findings, and that hearsay evidence was admissible in bail proceedings.
Chauke said the line of questioning confused him. “I do not understand what I should do because when I give answers, the prosecutor seems not to be satisfied with the answers,” he said.
Lekoloane later grew impatient when Chauke asked him to rephrase his questions.
“If you don’t have an answer, just say you don’t have an answer. You’re not going to dictate to me how I should ask you questions,” the prosecutor stated.
The bail application was scheduled to run from Monday to Thursday.
The hearing continues.
