It is twofold. First of all counsel is asking this witness to comment on the credibility of another witness's testimony, which is improper. Secondly, again this alleged inconsistency is being put to this witness about the leadership and the name of a group from a witness who is at a different vantage point than this witness and the prior witness's testimony has been mischaracterised in that the prior witness that he is referring - counsel is referring to did acknowledge in his testimony that this battalion was in existence at Koinadugu as well and it has been consistently put to this witness that 334, AB Sesay, never said that and I have the reference if your Honours want it. So it is a twofold objection in that sense. Firstly though, it is not proper for this witness to comment on the credibility of another witness's testimony - on another witness's testimony.