A senior staff officer at the Operations Directorate of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has explained why Ghana Standard Authority (GSA) produced contrary reports on the test conducted on lithovit foliar fertiliser that was supplied to Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) by Agricult Ghana Limited.
According to Paul Agyei Gyang, the GSA’s first examination of the lithovit fertilizer revealed that the product, meant for cocoa production was not a fertiliser, but a later test proved otherwise.
This was after the negative result was rejected by the supplier, Seidu Agongo, owner of Agricult Ghana Limited, who argued that the product tested was not one of agro-chemicals he supplied to COCOBOD.
Mr. Gyang, a subpoenaed witness of Seidu Agongo and his company, said the lithovit sample that tested negative for fertiliser was submitted to EOCO by Dr Yaw Adu Ampomah, a former Deputy Chief Executive of Agronomy and Quality Control (A&QC) of COCOBOD.
He was also a special advisor on cocoa to the then minister for Food and Agriculture, life member of the National Development Planning Committee (NDPC) and third prosecution witness in the case.
The trial high court, presided over by Justice Aboakye Tandoh, was told on Monday by the witness that the test that claimed lithovit was not a fertiliser was carried out by the Drugs and Cosmetics Department of GSA.
Led in evidence by Benson Nutsukpui, Counsel for Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited, he stated that the second test, which produced contrary result, was conducted by the Material Science Department of GSA.
According to him, the second sample that tested positive was submitted by two security personnel from COCOBOD in the presence Agongo and his lawyer, as well as an investigator from EOCO, Deputy Staff Officer (DSO) Prosper Akrasi.
Apparently, the two departments of the GSA had different expectations of the products, due to their specific mandates.
Nevertheless, he said the second sample was not even intact and that the seal was broken by the personnel from Cocobod, before handing it over to the investigator.
Meanwhile, it was earlier agreed between the Executive Director of EOCO and Dr Adu Ampomah that the Investigator should pick samples at random from the COCOBOD warehouse in the presence of the supplier and the board’s Schedule Officer.
The purpose for the latter exercise was to eliminate doubt about the test report, as earlier raised by Seidi Agongo on the first test.
Mr Gyang added that the feedback he received from the Investigator was that the agreement was not followed through and that the accused and his lawyer, together with the Investigator, were not granted access into the warehouse.
Again, one of the first samples submitted by Dr. Adu Ampomah was also examined by the Chemistry Department of University of Ghana and tested negative for fertiliser.
The second GSA test report is not available to the court, therefore, Counsel has applied that the witness makes the document available.
As a former head of the Organised Crime Unit of EOCO, he said the investigation into the alleged importation of lithovit was never completed.
He said the matter, which was referred to his unit through a chain of command, to establish through the experts whether lithovit was a fertiliser was cut short, on the order that the docket was transferred to the Ghana police service for further investigation.
Charges
The first accused in the trial is Dr. Stephen Kwabena Opuni, former Chief Executive of Cocobod and has once headed the Food and Drug Authority.
Dr. Opuni, first accused (A1), Agongo (A2) and Agricult Ghana Limited have pleaded not guilty to 27 court of defrauding by false pretence, wilfully causing financial loss to the republic, money laundering and corruption by public officer in contravention of the Public Procurement Act
Cross examination
Paul Agyei Gyang
DW1 for A2 & A3
Counsel for A2 & A3
Q. Mr. Paul Agyei Gyang, give your full name to the court?
A. My name is Paul Agyei Gyang.
Q. You’re a public servant, is that correct?
A. Yes, my lord.
Q. And you work with EOCO?
A. Yes my lord.
Q. You are with the Organised Crime Unit with EOCO? Is that correct?
A. My lord, I used to be the head of Organised Crime Unit of EOCO, but currently I’m at the Operation Directorate, as a senior staff officer.
Q. Sir, cast your mind back to 2018. You were the head of Organised Crime Unit, is that correct?
A. Yes my lord, that is correct.
Q. And the head office of EOCO is located in Accra?
A. That is correct.
Q. And in 2018, you were 51 years old, is that also correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Sir, cast your mind back to the 16th of January 2017, were you the head of the organised crime unit of EOCO, as at that date?
A. Yes my lord, I was.
Q. Now sir, have you ever heard of the product Lithovit?
A. Yes my lord, I have.
Q. So tell this honourable court on the 16th January 2016 while you were working in relation to lithovit.
A. My lord, around the same time, I cannot be specific, but just as you have said, lithovit as an agro-chemical product, together with others alleged to have fraudulently been sold to Cocobod was referred to my unit for investigation.
Q. Who was the head to the investigation team?
A. DSO Prosper Akrasi.
Q. What does DSO mean?
A. Deputy Staff Officer.
Q. Who referred the matter to DSO Prosper Akrasi?
A. My lord, I did the referral.
Q. How did the matter get to you?
A. The matter was referred to me through the Deputy Executive Director Operation from the Executive Director.
Q. So in our layman’s language, you mean the Execution Director referred the matter to the Deputy Executive Operation who then referred it to you as the head of organised crime unit under operations?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell this honourable court, who were the people allegedly accused to have sold the fraudulent fertiliser to Cocobod?
A. I can only remember Seidu Agongo of Agricult and Siisi Crenstil. My lord, there were others too. SMK Limited or something.
Q. You said you referred the matter to DSO Prosper Akrasi alone?
A. No my lord, at EOCO, we work in teams, but he was specifically in charge of the agro-chemicals cases.
Q. And who does he report to?
A. He reports to me.
Q. Good. Now have you ever heard of the Deputy Chief Executive Agronomy and Quality Control (A&QC) at Cocobod?
A. Yes.
Q. Now cast your mind back to April, specifically April 4, did anything happen in respect of Deputy Chief Executive A&QC?
A. My lord, as I have told this court, there were lot of issues that we were interacting with.
Q. So on the 4th, did anything happen in relation to Lithovit, DCE A&QC?
A. Yes.
Q. Kindly tell the court what happened?
A. The Deputy Chief Executive A&QC, in the person of Dr Adu Ampomah, brought in samples of the said lithovit to the then Executive Director to have it tested.
Q. Now, how were these samples forwarded?
A. I was called to the Executive Director’s office, together with the Investigator. We were given two bottles, one liter each to be tested. And in addition to the lithovit, there was a covering letter from Cocobod.
Q. Please, cast your mind back, who signed the covering letter from Cocobod to EOCO?
A. Immediately, I can’t remember.
Q. So you and the Investigator were handed over two liters of lithovit. Did you receive any instructions?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the instructions, Sir?
A. My lord, we were directed to have the product tested immediately.
Q. Who was to test the product?
A. My lord, Ghana Standard Authority and the Chemistry Department of University of Ghana.
Q. Now did anything happen on April 20, 2017 in relation to this testing?
A. The samples, one was sent to Ghana Standard Authority and the other to the Chemistry Department of University of Ghana.
Q. So apart from the Ghana Standard Authority, did you send it to anywhere else too?
A. The Chemistry Department of University of Ghana.
Q. What was the purpose of the test sir?
A. My lord, the purpose was to establish through the experts whether the chemical was a fertiliser.
Q. On the May 5, 2017 did your Department receive anything in respect of testing?
A. Yes, my lord, I can’t be sure whether it was received first from the Chemistry Department or Ghana Standard Authority.
Q. What did you receive from the testing? What did they send back to you?
A. They sent reports. The report indicated that…
Q. The samples that you sent, did you receive them back?
A. I hope so, because that is the normal practice.
Q. Please look at Exhibit A page 110. Is it the report from the University of Ghana, Chemistry Department?
A. My Lord, I’m having challenges here because a report that was received from the University of Ghana should be directed to the Executive Director and I’m not seeing that here.
Q. The first page is a letter from the University of Ghana, is that correct?
A. Yes my Lord.
Q. Its reference is a reference number from EOCO?
A. Yes, my Lord.
Q. Tell this honourable court, did EOCO receive a report from University of Ghana?
A. Yes my lord, EOCO did receive a report from the University of Ghana, but as I have told this court, even though references are made to EOCO forwarding letters, but this letter is not addressed to the Executive Director of EOCO.
Q. The letter you received was addressed to the Executive Director, is that correct?
A. Yes my Lord.
Q. But it is not the one which appears on Exhibit H on page 110?
A. This letter is different from what we received.
Q. EOCO has a copy of the report they received?
A. EOCO should have a copy.
Q. If the court orders you, can you oblige this court with a copy on the next date.
A. EOCO is an institution of record, I should be able to produce a copy.
Counsel: I wish to apply that at the next adjourned date the witness should supply the report EOCO received from the Ghana Standard Authority and the Chemistry Department of University of Ghana.
Prosecution: We have supplied everything. Whatever report we got we have disclosed it all.
Court: The witness is ordered to produce the report.
Q. If you can recall, what did the report say?
A. My lord, it has been sometime now and because I’m not a scientist until I see the report I can’t say anything.
Q. When you receive the report did you take any step in the investigation of the matter?
A. Yes my lord. I may have to go back. On the surface of the report, without making reference to chemical composition, to the ordinary eye what we saw was that the chemical which was submitted to the Ghana Standard Authority lacked the ingredients to make it qualify as fertiliser.
Q. So did EOCO take any step after receiving that report?
A. After the Executive Director had gone through the report, he directed that the accused or by then he was a suspect, SeiduAgongo should be charged with the appropriate offence immediately.
Q. So what steps did you take?
A. My lord, we invited the then Suspect SeiduAgongo who came with his lawyer
Q. So suspect SeiduAgongo came with his lawyer, what transpired?
A. My lord, I think when he first came and he was informed that we tested the product and the result was negative and he asked that a copy is given to him to be given to his lawyer so that he advice.
Q. So what happened?
A. As the head of the unit, I objected to that and put him before the Executive Director.
Q. When you informed him about the findings did he accept it?
A. He objected, the product be retested because probably the product might not be the one he supplied to COCOBOD.
Q. So in other word he challenged the report.
Prosecution raises objection
A. What do you mean by he objected?
A. He objected that the chemical we tested probably might not be part of the ones he supplied to Cocobod. We, the Investigator and myself, took him to the director.
Q. Sir, when you took him to the Executive Director, what transpired?
A. I think he was asked to go and be invited another time.
Q. Why was he asked to go and to be invited another time?
A. This was to pave way for the Executive Director and Dr Adu Ampomah, Deputy Chief Executive A&QC to have a deliberation over the test result.
Q. When the Investigator, yourself and A2 went to the Executive Director what was A2 position on the testing?
A. My Lord he objected in the presence of the executive director as he had earlier done.
Q. Was the source of the product that was tested known to Seidu Agongo at the time of testing?
A. My lord, I can’t be very sure. He was told that the product came from the Deputy Chief Executive A&QC
A. When was he told this one?
A. He was told after the testing.
Q. You said when the result came you invited him and told him the result after it was tested?
A. I can’t recall.
Q. But you are clear in your mind that it was after the testing?
A. I can’t be too sure.
Q. When he said he objected, what were the concerns he raised?
A. His concerns, if I could remember, were that the products we tested might not be part of the consignment he had supplied to Cocobod.
Q. When A2 was told to go and come back what happened?
A. After the deliberation with Deputy Chief Executive A&QC and Executive Director of EOCO, it was agreed that once we have some of the products in the warehouse, we should go with the suppliers to identify any of the products that is to be tested to avoid further objections by the suppliers
Q. So the initial samples, were they taken in the presence of A2?
A. No, it was brought in by Dr Adu Ampomah.
Q. So when Dr. Adu Ampomah and EOCO Executive Director agreed that the investigator should take a sample from COCOBOD in the presence of the suppliers, what happened thereafter?
A. They, Seidu Agongo and another supplier, were written to come at a particular date to assist with the selection of a product. When I said they were written to, I mean by the Deputy Executive Director of EOCO.
Q. Did they come for the selection?
A. Yes my lord they came.
Q. Kindly tell this honourable court what happened when they came for the selection?
A. In the case of Seidu Agongo, who had come with his lawyer for that procedure to follow. Dr Adu Ampomah asked them to meet the Schedule Officer at the warehouse, off the Spintex road. The Investigator was equally informed to be present, so he went.
Q. On June 29, 2017 did Cocobod have warehouses?
A. My Lord, COCOBOD has agro-chemical warehouses.
Q. Have you ever heard of director of procurement at Cocobod?
A. At the time, I think I had interaction with Akutek.
Q. Let us now get to the 29th of June 2017, did you send your Investigator, Akrasi?
A. Yes, that was the day they went to pick the samples.
Q. Who else was in the company of Akrasi and A2.
A. My Lord, it was the investigator and A2
Q. And was anybody with them?
A. No.
Q. Did they meet at EOCO?
A. No, they met at the warehouse. The investigator was given instructions to meet at the warehouse where SeiduAgongo and his counsel together with personnel from COCOBOD were supposed to be there.
Q. Did this team have interaction with the director, one Akutek?
A. If my memory serves me right, two security men have been instructed by Autek to give the sample to the investigation officer and the suspect.
Q. So what happened when they got to the COCOBOD warehouse?
A. According to the investigator, he was given one liter of lithovit, which seal had already been broken by the two security officers.
Q. What was the arrangements that the Executive Director of EOCO reached with Dr Adu Ampomah regarding the collection of the sample?
A. The arrangement was that both the supplier and receiver should agree with the sample from the warehouse in the presence of the investigator
Q. When they got to the warehouse were the officers of cocobod present?
A. According to the investigator two security men representing COCOBOD were there
Q. And what happened when the two security men met the accused and the investigator
A. The security officers on behalf of COCOBOD gave a liter of lithovit to the investigator, which seal had been broken.
Q. Did A2 react?
A. Yes my Lord, according to the investigator A2 initially objected to the bottle because the seal had been broken, but seeing his label on it, he said the label was his, but cannot guarantee what was inside
Q. Now the two security officers can you remember their names?
A. It been while it should be in the statement
Q. Have you heard of the name Egbe Mawutso
A. It does not sound familiar.
Q. What about Prince Negbey.
A. It doesn’t sound familiar.
Q. The sample that was handed to the Investigator, what was done with it?
A. It was agreed between EOCO and Cocobod to be sent to Ghana Standard Authority.
Q. On the 30th of June 2017, can you remember the date in respect of the second testing?
A. That was the date it was sent for testing.
Q. And what about July 2, 2017 did you receive anything in respect of the testing?
A. The office received the test report?
Q. And this report was from the Standards Authority to the Executive Director?
Q. Yes, my lord.
Q. And EOCO has a copy of this report?
A. We should have a copy. At a point in time EOCO was asked to hand all the reports in respect of cocobod to the police for further investigation. So the reports were part of the docket submitted for further investigation.
Q. And ordinarily the EOCO would have duplicates docket?
A. EOCO should have.
Q. And if this court directs that EOCO should present a copy of the report, would you be able to produce it.
A. Not personally, I cannot guarantee because I have left the unit for more than six years
Q. But the institution should have a copy
A. I will have to find out
Q. So you are not a scientist I know, what is your recollection of the second results?
A As I said earlier from the face of it, the report said it was a fertiliser.
Q. You mean the second report from Ghana Standards Authority, which was picked by all parties, says it was a fertiliser.
A. Yes my Lord
Q. Even with the seal broken, the content was fertiliser?
A. Yes my Lord, according to the report.
Q. Have you ever heard of the name Material Science Department of the Ghana Standard Authority?
A. Yes. If I may throw some light on the result of the three tests. My lord after receiving the test results from Ghana Standard Authority, the team met with the Executive Director and his deputy having seen the changes in the results.
My lord, we invited the two scientists who worked on the substance. The first substance, the one that went first, which was addressed to the Chief Executive Office of Ghana Standard Authority was referred to the Drug and Cosmetic Department for analysis and the second one, which was referred to Chief Executive was referred to the Material Science Department for analysis. So we invited the heads of the two departments together with the analysts and my lord, from their explanations both departments were looking for different chemical components.
Q. Did you find out which of the departments, Material Science Department on one hand and Drugs Forensic Cosmetic Department on the other hand, was equipped to analyse fertiliser?
A. I think from the statement that was given by the analysts, it is the Material Science Department.
Q. Now you said that you invited the heads of departments and analysts, do you remember their names?
A. I can only remember one Fiona.
Q. Have you ever heard the madam Fiona Gyamfi?
A. Yes, I think she is the head of one of the departments
Q. What about Genevieve Baah Mantey?
A. I can’t remember
Q. For how long have you been an investigator?
A. As long as 36 years
Q. And were these 36 years with EOCO?
A. No not with EOCO
Q. So I presume you have worked with another security service?
A. Yes my lord, the Ghana Police Service
Q. What is an investigative report?
A. It is a report that is written after investigation is completed.
Q. Who writes this report!
A. The investigation team was supervised by the Executive Director and the deputy Executive Director because they have to endorse it.
Q. Who signs unto the report on behalf of the team?
A. If it is a draft, the investigator signs on behalf of the head of the unit and the head of the unit submit to the deputy executive director for onward transmission to the executive director or wherever the report is supposed to go.
Q. What if it is not a draft and final report, who signs it?
A. The Executive Director.
Q. Did your investigation team prepare a report in this matter?
A. To the best of my knowledge we did not complete the investigation. So any report that was written was between the team and management
