7 on and spoke lies, made up stories, getting somebody into big trouble, do you believe that God would know that you are telling lies and that God would punish you for doing that? WITNESS: Yes I do.’ [8] The above leading, compound question posed by the court is also not helpful. It was impossible to gather from it whether the complainant understood what it means to speak the truth; what the oath means; and, the difference between the truth and falsehood, nor the consequences if he did not speak the truth. All that the complainant could say in response to the question was ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The magistrate felt compelled to undertake an enquiry. No doubt on seeing the child in the witness stand she entertained certain doubts that caused her to embark upon that enquiry. What was required of her in embarking upon that enquiry has been spelt out by the Constitutional Court (per Ngcobo J) in Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development & others 2009 (2) SACR 130 (CC) paras 165, 167 and 168 as follows: ‘The practice followed in courts is for the judicial officer to question the child in order to determine whether the child understands what it means to speak the truth. As pointed out above, some of these questions are very theoretical and seek to determine the child's understanding of the abstract concepts of truth and falsehood. The questioning may at times be very confusing and even terrifying for a child. The result is that the judicial officer may be left with the impression that the child does not understand what it means to speak the truth and then disqualify the child from giving evidence. Yet with skilful questioning, that child may be able to convey in his or her own child language, to the presiding officer that he or she understands what it means to speak the truth. What the section requires is not the knowledge of abstract concepts of truth and falsehood. What the proviso requires is that the child will speak the truth. As the High Court observed, the child may not know the intellectual concepts of truth or falsehood, but will understand what it means to be required to relate what happened and nothing else. … When a child, in the court's words, cannot convey the appreciation of the abstract concepts of truth and falsehood to the court, the solution does not lie in allowing every child to testify in court. The solution lies in the proper questioning of children; in particular, younger children. The