NGCOBO J appropriate to their age, level of maturity and unique needs. These subsections recognise this. They also recognise that vulnerability decreases with age. [161] In the light of the above, and flowing from sections 158(5) and 170A(7), the distinction lies in the fact that those subsections require a presiding officer to give reasons for refusing to appoint an intermediary or the use of CCTV, as the case may be, where the child is below the age of 14 years “immediately upon refusal.” Where the child is 14 years or older, the presiding officer need not give reasons immediately upon refusal, but may give reasons at a later stage or at the end of the case. This distinction is neither irrational nor unfair. It serves merely to remind presiding officers of the greater vulnerability of younger children. It does not, however, mean that an intermediary should not be appointed or CCTV should not be used, as the case may be, for children who are 14 years or older. [162] Sections 158(5) and 170A(7) are, therefore, not unconstitutional. Section 164(1) [163] Section 164 provides: “(1) Any person who, is found not to understand the nature and import of the oath or the affirmation, may be admitted to give evidence in criminal proceedings without taking the oath or making the affirmation: Provided that such person shall, in lieu of the oath or affirmation, be admonished by the presiding judge or judicial officer to speak the truth. (2) If such person wilfully and falsely states anything which, if sworn, would have amounted to the offence of perjury or any statutory offence punishable 82