CHAIRPERSON
My problem is, and I'm leaning towards what was suggested to you, however not all the nuts and bolts have been cleared up, the problem I have is that if the witness says that this document was not supposed to exist in the first place, can you then continue on the basis that the contents is the truth and say, "Look here, but this is what happened, you say that's what happened, I'm putting it to you this is what happened", can you, as a member of the bar, then correctly say that what is contained in that document is the truth, are you able to put it as a proposition in that fashion, when you're not even sure if it's the truth, essentially two versions that is ostensibly forthcoming from the same source, I'll appreciate your point, one of it is not correct.   Now if that source says that what is in that document was not supposed to be in existence, how do we sidestep that, or how do we overcome that problem?   And in no formal court in our legal system would that be allowed, be it civil, labour, criminal, the lot.   And if we can overcome that, then possibly that suggestion made to you would be the appropriate one, hence I asked you in the beginning, if I were to allow you to put questions to the witness based on the contents of that document, would you be happy to be saddled with his answer, whatever it may be?   The way I understand your argument, you seem to suggest that, despite his answers you want him to go further.   Can I allow you to do that?