Paul Agyei Gyang, a senior officer at the Operations Directorate of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), says he is shocked over alleged claims made by the police that they did not receive one of Ghana Standard Authority (GSA) test reports on lithovit.
According to Mr.Gyang, the test report,being referred to,was part of the documents on cocoa investigations docket that EOCO handed over to the Police Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in 2018.
This particular test report, which said lithovit was a fertiliser with major active ingredients present, could not be traced on the docket, per the claims of Chief Inspector Thomas Mensah Mercer.
Meanwhile, Mr. Gyangis hundred per cent sure that the report in question was on the docket.
Testifying as a subpoenaed witness for businessman Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited at the Lands Division of the Accra High Court, Mr Gyang said by July 4, 2017 EOCO had received the second test report from the GSA.
But while being led in evidence by Benson Nutsukpui, counsel for SeiduAgongo, the witness was asked whether the new investigation team from the CID, led by C/Inp Mercer, ever invited him and the answer was in the negative.
He told the court, presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, on Wednesday, that immediately the report was received, the complainant, Dr Yaw AduAmpomah, who at the time was the Deputy Chief Executive in charge of Agronomy and Quality Control (A&QC) was notified because that was the standard practice at EOCO.
The court was informed that the witness had no knowledge that a committee, headed by Dr Adu Ampomah, was formed in respect of the work he did.
At a cursory look at the report of the committee, the witness also realised that no reference was made to the second report by the GSA that certified lithovit to be a fertiliser.
Hitherto, the entirety of the Adu Ampomah claim was centered on the first test result on the lithovit product, from the GSA Drug Forensic and Cosmetic Unit, as well as the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana, which samples were supplied by the complainant (Dr Ampomah).
The second report was as a result of the first one being rejected by the second accused (A2), Seidu Agongo, on the basis that an earlier sample was probably not one of the products he supplied to the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD).
According to the witness, farmers who were invited to give statements in respect of investigation into the case were also provided by Dr. Adu Ampomah, a prosecution witness.
The witness’ evidence led by Counsel Benson
Q. Who was the complainant of the matter that was brought before EOCO?
A. If my memory serves me right the Deputy Chief Executive in charge of A&QC, in the person of Dr Adu Ampomah.
Q. When you said your Executive Director had discussions with the Deputy Chief Executive A&QC, who is that person of the Deputy Chief Executive Agronomy and Qualify Control then?
A. My lord it is Dr Adu Ampomah
Q. Now you also told this court that after you received the second report the Directorate brought the scientists together, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Who else was involved in this discussion with the scientists?
A. My lord, the head of Chemistry Department, University of Ghana.
Q. Any other person?
A. That is all I can remember for now.
Q. Now sir did your directorate have the occasion to communicate this second test to the interested parties?
A. My lord if anything of that happened it should be at the management level and of which I may not be privy to.
Q. Please tell the court if you know. Was the complainant informed about the result of the second test?
A. Yes my Lord, as I told the court about the people, he himself was equally informed.
Q. Please was he invited to EOCO office for …
A. As an interested party it was only reasonable that management invited him to let him know what the result was.
Q. Now sir cast your mind back, this invitation to Dr AduAmpomah was it on or before your meeting with the scientists?
A. I think initially, the scientists were first invited, for which reason they had two different results. Thereafter some few days or so he was also invited.
Q. Now can you recall around what date the scientists were invited?
A. It is unfortunate I can’t recall.
Q. Please look at Exhibit H. Please look at page 3 of H just at the top, the Executive summary. It said that a committee was constituted in October that is correct?
A. Yes it is there my lord
Q. Please what date was that committee constituted?
A. 4th October 2017.
Q. As at 4th October 2017, this matter was under investigation by EOCO?
A. That is correct.
Q. Tell this court by that date 4th October 2017, did you receive the report of the second testing at EOCO.
A. Yes my lord, 26th July 2017.
Q. So as at the 4th of October 2017, EOCO has received this report and discussed it with the Scientists as at the 4th of October 2017?
A. Yes my lord.
[Q. From the nature of operations of EOCO, how long after the 26th of July, 2017 would have informed the interested parties about this other test result?
A. By our operations as soon as a result is out we have to inform parties.
Q. So tell this court by the 4th of October 2017, was Dr.AduAmpomah informed of the second result?
A. I believe so.
Q. Now you have Exhibit H. Look on the date on Exhibit 7th November, 2017.
A. That is correct.
Q. You see the two reports in Exhibit H from Standard Authority and University of Ghana which concluded that the lithovit they examined did not have the necessary ingredients are in the reports, is that true?
A. Yea my lord, that is true.
Q. Now take some few minutes of the court time if the report Exhibit 133/A2A3 is also captured in Exhibit H?
A. After having a cursory look at it, it is not there. I only found the first report of Ghana Standard Authority, which was forwarded to EOCO on 4th July 2017, and another covering letter from the University of Ghana, Chemistry Department.
Q. After your cursory look at that Exhibit you have found that Exhibit 133 is not included?
A. Yes my lord exactly so.
Q. And look page 3 of Exhibit H and tell this court who is the chairman who produced Exhibit H?
A. My lord Dr AduAmpomah, Deputy Chief A&QC was the chairman.
Q. Now at all times that EOCO was doing investigation into this matter, who were they reporting to at COCOBOD?
A. My lord, Dr AduAmpomah
Q. Now please tell this honourable court if back in 2017, you personally or the investigation team knew about the existence of this committee?
A. My lord I’m for the first time hearing of the committee I cannot tell whether management was informed.
Q. EOCO handed over the docket to the police in June 2018, is that correct?
A. The docket was handed to police but I can’t be specific whether it was June or July.
Q. Do you remember the year?
A. Somewhere in 2018 and 2017 there about I cannot be very sure.
Q. Yesterday we talked about the investigator’s statement you wrote, is that correct?
A. Yes my lord.
Q. Was handing over the docket earlier before the investigator’s statement?
A. The statement was together with the docket
Q. So if I told you your statement was written on the 15th of June 2018, when you would have handed over the docket?
A. 2018 my lord.
Q. Now by the time you were handing over the report to the Police, did EOCO receive Exhibit H on the file?
A. My lord, the investigation team did not receive anything, but I can’t tell management had been given a copy.
Q. By your mode of operations in EOCO if management received a copy would it be minuted down to the investigation team?
A. Exactly so my lord.
Q. What documents were handed over to the police from EOCO?
A. We had directive to hand all dockets involving COCOBOD of which this case was part. Statements taken from complainants, witnesses and suspects and all relevant documents we gathered including the test reports ie the test reports we received from the scientists.
Q. So EOCO will consider Exhibit 133 relevant and on the docket?
A. Yes my lord you’re right
Q. On the 15th of March 2021, under cross examination, Mr Thomas Mensah Mercer told the court that the docket that the police received had only two test reports, the ones that have only negative results. Would that be correct?
A. My lord, I would be surprised.
Q. I know you would be surprised if EOCO did not give Exhibit 133?
A. The report was inclusive.
Q. Now Mr Thomas Mensah Mercer indeed admitted reading your investigator’s statement. Tell this honourable court, did he or anybody on the police investigation team contact you to find out about the Exhibit 133, which you wrote about in your statement?
A. No my lord nobody contacted me.
Q. Now from June 2018 till today you have remained in the employment of EOCO is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Has your office sent you any signal or request for explanationwhy Exhibit 133 is not on the police docket?
A. Nobody has contacted me.
Q. An investigator’s statement, which you wrote will be the beginning of the person taking over. That is true?
A. Yes my lord you’re right
Q. And in normal investigative work, if you wrote about another test result and if it cannot be found you will be contacted. That is also true?
A. Yes my lord.
Q. Now can you explain how come you were never contacted in respect of the investigation you did and Exhibit 133?
A. My lord it will be very difficult for me to explain.
Q. Now tell this court what is your impression of this development in relation to Exhibit 133 that I have taken you through this morning?
A. As I have told this court I’m only surprised, but I can’t explain.
Q. Now sir, EOCO took statements from a lot of people. That is correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Sir, cast your mind back, you took statements from a lot of people including farmers?
A. Yes my lord.
Q. Will the name Obeng Emmanuel or Emmanuel Obeng of Tafo come to mind?
A. The name I might have forgotten because we interacted with a lot of famers.
Q. But you cannot remember the number of famers you took statements from?
A. That’s correct. The farmers we took statements from, we had them through Dr AduAmpomah. So Dr AduAmpomah directed.
Q. When you said say you had them through Dr AduAmpomah, what exactly do you mean?
A. I mean, my lord, he mentioned the people we could contact.
Q. Now did the investigation team make any request to A2 & A3 to bring you farmers who used the product?
A. I did not.
Q. Apart from Dr AduAmpomah’s farmers’ witnesses, did the investigation team find other farmers of your own to question them about the product?
A. I think we did.
Q. Can you remember how many you got?
A. About two or three
Q. Did you take statements from them?
A. Some said they were scared to give statements and they did not give statements. About two of them gave statements.
Q. Can you remember, which of the farmers you had the statements from, were they ones you got from Dr AduAmpomah?
A. I can’t remember.
Q. As an investigation team, try and see if you can remember how often your meetings with Dr AduAmpomah were?
A. As Deputy Chief Executive in charge of A&QC, most of the time he was dealing directly with the Executive Director of EOCO. We will go there when there is a need.
Q. Please try and see if you can remember how many times you have directives or you went there to meet Dr AduAmpomah during the course of this investigation
A. I don’t want to guess…we were not dealing with this case only, we were dealing with about 8 different dockets involving COCOBOD. So when we have directives to meet him on any of those dockets we did. Not only on this docket.
Q. I know investigators shy away from this. How often during the course of the investigation wereyou meeting Dr AduAmpomah?
A. I can’t remember.
Q. Of the 8 cases that you were investigating, how many are being prosecuted?
A. I can’t be very sure.
Q. But this is the only one you know being persecuted?
A. This is the only one I know.
Q. Now, so you know whether DSO Akresi gave a statement to the police?
A. My lord, he was invited to assist the new team who took over from us, so I wouldn’t be surprised he gave a statement.
Q. If he did whose custody will it be?
A. It will be in the custody of the police.
Q. Would EOCO have a copy?
A. I can’t tell my lord.
Q. Now you said Akresi was invited to assist the new team or the police. Would Akresi report back to EOCO his involvement with new team?
A. Yes, he had to report back to EOCO.
Q. And you as the team lead be brief on it?
A. It is through the briefing I got to know he was invited to assist the police.
Q. Now on the 8th of February 2021, C/Ins Prempeh told the court that they had a petition to investigate this matter and that the petition was signed by the Senior Minister, Hon. Yaw OsafoMaafo. Did EOCO also receive a petition to deal with this matter?
A. No my lord.
Q. Now after you gave a statement and handed over the docket, were you ever engaged in this matter the investigation of lithovit?
A. No my lord.
Q. Was EOCO, your institution, involved in the investigation of this matter?
A. No my lord, EOCO was not involved in the matter.
Q. Is there anything else you know about this investigation that I have not asked you about?
A. No my lord.
Counsel that will be all for this witness
By Court: End of examination in chief of DW1. Cross examination by counsel for A1
