BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE
Mr Memani, the point I was trying to make was that, if there is no evidence that the witness did thereafter go and visit Mr Ngo at Venter's house you can't put it the way you put it.  You can't say: "Is it true that that you did go and and and and visit Mr Ngo at Venter's house"?   And I know that you - that I suspect that question was fed to you by your attorney but I would have expected that he would have assure assured himself as to whether there is that kind of evidence.
	What you could have done would have been to put it something like: "Did you go and see him at Venter's house"?, not: "Is it true that you did go and see him at Venter's house"? Because once you say: "Is it true that you did go and see him at Venter's house"?, it implies that and indeed he can only put it that way if there is evidence or there was evidence that the witness did that.