Polokwane Magistrate’s Court magistrate Godfrey Netshiozwi has dismissed an objection by defence advocate Mutheiwana Sikhwari during the cross-examination for bail application of musician Lehlogonolo “Shebeshxt” Chauke.
This after the defence accused the court of allowing the state to question its client unfairly.
The dispute arose on Wednesday when the state questioned Chauke about an inconsistency between Chauke’s founding affidavit and a supplementary affidavit concerning his decision not to apply for bail after additional charges were brought against him.
Chauke is facing 21 charges consolidated from multiple criminal matters, including attempted murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, assault, firearm-related offences and charges of culpable homicide and reckless or negligent driving linked to a 2024 road accident that claimed his daughter’s life.
He initially faced nine charges before further charges were added as the cases progressed.
Chauke was arrested on November 12 2025, at his home in Bendor, Polokwane. The arrest followed an investigation into an alleged shooting incident on October 19 2025 in Ladanna, near Polokwane
READ: Shebeshxt trial postponed as charges rise to 20
State questions Chauke over bail application
During cross-examination, the state referred Chauke to paragraph 20 of his supplementary affidavit, which states: “Therefore it is common cause that since 10 charges have been added I have not applied for bail.”
The statement was contrasted with his earlier allegation in his founding affidavit that he had been denied his legal right to apply for bail after the additional charges were introduced.
The state questioned whether his earlier claim was incorrect, given that the supplementary affidavit appeared to indicate that he had chosen not to apply for bail after the charges were added.
The questioning prompted an objection from Sikhwari, who argued that the state was relying on only part of the paragraph instead of considering its full context.
READ MORE: Ballistics expert questions shooting evidence in Shebeshxt case
Sikhwari accuses State of unfair questioning
Sikhwari argued that the entire paragraph should be read to Chauke before he was questioned about its contents.
“It is unfair that the state is referring to parts of his supplementary affidavit without considering the full context of paragraph 20 of his affidavit. It is seven lines, if they want to question him on it they must read the full paragraph. I object to that question,” Sikhwari said.
The defence lawyer maintained that isolating a portion of the affidavit could create a misleading impression of what Chauke intended to convey.
He further alleged that the court was treating his client unfairly and allowing the state to continue with a line of questioning that had already been repeated.
Magistrate defends cross-examination
Netshiozwi defended the proceedings, explaining that cross-examination is intended to test the credibility of evidence presented before the court.
The magistrate also noted that Chauke had the right to answer questions or choose not to answer particular questions.
However, Sikhwari remained dissatisfied, arguing that the question could mislead his client if the full paragraph was not read to him.
“This question may end up misleading my client. Paragraph 20 has not been read to the witness,” Sikhwari said.
When asked to read paragraph 20, Chauke explained that he understood the supplementary affidavit to be a response to questions arising from his founding affidavit.
“Because my understanding was that the supplementary affidavit was to address those questions,” Chauke said.
Defence alleges court is assisting the State
The exchange continued as Sikhwari reiterated his objection, saying the question had been asked repeatedly and that Chauke had already answered it.
“This question has been asked repeatedly and the witness answered repeatedly. We all know what’s in paragraph 20. I feel that this court is becoming unfair to this witness and is subjecting him to an unfair cross-examination. The court has no right to come to the rescue of the state,” Sikhwari said.
Netshiozwi rejected the suggestion that the court was assisting the prosecution, emphasising that its role was to administer justice impartially and allow both sides an opportunity to present their cases.
Objection overruled
The magistrate ruled that the state was entitled to extract relevant portions of the supplementary affidavit for cross-examination.
“It is the applicant’s right to state in full what paragraph 20 says, I cannot fault the state for extracting from the paragraph for its cross-examination therefore the objection is hereby overruled,” Netshiozwi said.
Netshiozwi further indicated that the defence could apply for the court’s recusal if it believed the magistrate was assisting the state.
- Magistrate Godfrey Netshiozwi dismissed an objection by defence advocate Mutheiwana Sikhwari during the bail application cross-examination of musician Lehlogonolo "Shebeshxt" Chauke at Polokwane Magistrate’s Court.
- The defence objected to the state questioning Chauke about an inconsistency between his founding affidavit and supplementary affidavit regarding his decision not to apply for bail after additional charges.
- Chauke faces 21 consolidated charges including attempted murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, assault, firearm-related offences, and culpable homicide linked to a 2024 accident that killed his daughter.
- Sikhwari accused the state of unfairly isolating a portion of paragraph 20 of Chauke’s supplementary affidavit during questioning and claimed the court was being unfair to his client.
- Magistrate Netshiozwi overruled the objection, stating the state was entitled to extract relevant portions of the affidavit, and clarified the court's role was to administer justice impartially.
