Accused was, amongst other things, an evasive witness. In my view, there are several reasons for this. He failed to listen properly to questions put to him under crossexamination, giving an impression that he was more worried by the impact that his answers might cause rather than the questions asked. Often, a question requiring a straight forward answer turns into a point of debate about what another witness did or said. When contradictions were pointed out to him, or when he was asked why certain propositions were not put to state witnesses, he often blamed his legal team for the oversight. Although the evidence of the accused is important, when a Court Determines to give or otherwise often accuse, caution must be exercised, and courts ought to avoid attaching too much weight to such untruthfulness. The conclusion, that because an accused is untruthful, he is therefore probably guilty, must be guided against as a false statement does not always justify the most extreme conclusion. In