Another officer of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) has also rejected Attorney-General’s (A-G) exhibit, purported to contain powdered lithovit fertiliser.
Jerome Abgesi Dogbatse, a Senior Research Scientist at the Soil Science Division of Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG), an arm of COCOBOD, has become the second person to have rejected the exhibit after Dr. Yaw Adu-Ampomah.
Jerome, just like Dr. Yaw Adu-Ampomah, when shown a cylindrical container of powdered lithovit fertiliser labeled as Exhibit E by the Accra High Court, and whether he has seen it before at CRIG, answered no.
Testifying as third Defense Witness (DW3) for Seidu Agongo and his company, Agricult Ghana Limited, and the second and third accused (A2 & A3), Jerome said the lithovit fertiliser he knew was liquid and not solid.
He was led and cross-examined by the defence counsel to read documents from CRIG and COCOBOD, which described the agro product as lithovit liquid fertiliser.
The said Exhibit E was tendered by the A-G through its second Prosecution Witness (PW2).
Dr Alfred Arthur, also a Research Scientist at the Soil Science Division of CRIG on October 29, 2018 but when Dr. Adu-Ampomah (PW3), now COCOBOD former Deputy Chief Executive of Agronomy and Qualify Control (A&QC) was shown the exhibit on November 27, 2019 he denied any knowledge of it.
“My Lord, I don’t know where this is coming from because this will not be the sample that was brought the first time. The first sample came in 2013 and I don’t know whether it is this same sample you are referring to. The sample which came in 2013 of which Dr Amoah is referring to, I wouldn’t know if it is the same thing you are showing to me,” Dr Ampomah responded at the time.
Jerome Abgesi Dogbatse (DW3) in his explanation during the Tuesday May 7, 2024 sitting of the court denied ever seeing the Exhibit E in CRIG, before coming to the court.
Jerome had been consistent in telling the court, presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, that the test of lithovit foliar fertiliser was completed before he joined CRIG on November 4, 2013.
Counsel Codjoe then linked DW3’s answer to PW3 and further stated that the crux of the prosecution’s case is that lithovit was powdery and not liquid.
Furthermore, the testing of lithovit fertiliser did not go the two or three years full cycle of trial, because Dr Opuni allegedly ordered that protocol was stepped side.
Counsel Codjoe had DW3 confirming that when Dr Opuni visited CRIG in January 2014, he was at that time in the employment of CRIG as young Research Scientist.
And again, Dr Franklin Amoah, Executive Director of CRIG, never held a meeting with the Soil Science Division with respect to shortening the period of testing.
Cross examination
Q: When were you employed at CRIG?
A: 4th November, 2013.
Q: At the time you were employed, 1st accused, Dr. Stephen Opuni was not in the employment of Cocobod. Is that correct?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: Who was the C. E of Cocobod when you were employed?
A: Mr. Anthony Fofie.
Q: Who was the Executive Director of CRIG at the time when you were employed?
A: Dr. F. M. Amoah.
Q: When was Amoah transferred from CRIG during the first tenure, at the time you were employed?
A: It was in 2014.
Q: Was it in August 2014 if you can remember?
A: I don’t recall. I know it was in 2014.
Q: But you know as a fact that there were some issues concerning Dr. Franklin Amoah, with respect to a female employee at CRIG. Are you aware of it?
A: Before his transfer No, but afterwards I heard that rumour.
Q: It involved a female staff at CRIG and it bothered on inappropriate behaviour. You should be aware of it.
A: I repeat. I am aware but it was after the transfer?
Q: There was this other issue about him being involved with respect to inappropriate behaviour with respect to CRIG’s plantation, where he is supposed to have unlawfully harvested some timber?
A: Yes.
Q: There were publications with respect to this matter in the newspapers hence people outside CRIG read this in the papers?
A: Yes I am aware.
Q: When did Dr Amoah go on retirement?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Being in CRIG which is a subsidiary of Cocobod, you are aware that as at January, 2016 Dr. Franklin Amoah had retired from Cocobod?
A: I can’t see the question in that. It is a statement he has made.
Q: I am suggesting to you that as at January 2016 Dr. Franklin Amoah was not in the employment of Cocobod and had retired?
A: Very well.
Q: I am putting to you that as at January, 2016, Dr. Franklin Amoah had retired from Cocobod and was a retiree?
A: Okay.
Q: Dr. Amoah, to your knowledge returned to CRIG from retirement in 2016. Are you aware of that?
A: Yes I am aware of that.
Q: When Dr. Amoah was transferred from CRIG to Cocobod in 2014 he was succeeded by Dr. Gilbert Anim Kwapong. Are you aware of that?
A: Yes I am aware of that.
Q: So in 2017 when Dr. Amoah came back to CRIG he came to take over the position of Dr. Gilbert Anim Kwapong. Is that so?
A: Yes that is correct.
Q: Can you tell this Court where Dr. Gilbert Anim Kwapong was transferred to after his position had been taken over by Dr. Franklin Amoah?
A: He was transferred to Cocobod.
Q: You are aware that Dr. Franklin Amoah gave evidence in this trial for the prosecution.
A: Yes I am aware.
Q: You are also aware that Dr. Franklin Amoah together with Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah and Dr. William Mensah were all retirees from Cocobod prior to January, 2017.
A: Yes I am aware.
Q: And you are further aware that these three persons transitioned from members of the Political Transition Team on cocoa to become substantive employees of Cocobod and CRIG?
A: I am aware of Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah, but the other two I have no idea that they were part of the Transitional Team.
Q: Dr. Franklin Amoah in his evidence before this Court on 16th July, 2018 states that he was a member of the transitional team on cocoa. Do you agree with him?
A: He said so.
Q: What is your present position in CRIG?
A: I am a Senior Research Scientist at CRIG.
Q: According to Dr. Amoah, in his evidence in Court, he states that he was first appointed as a Research Officer in 1982 and worked in CRIG throughout until he became the substantive Executive Director of CRIG. Is that correct?
A: He said so.
Q: In his evidence in Court, he stated that in February, 2017, he was recalled and given a contract at CRIG. Do you know the duration of his contract?
A: I know he was given a contract, but I have no idea about the duration.
Q: CRIG is responsible for conducting investigations into factors that affect the production of its mandate crops namely cocoa, coffee, cola, shea nut and cashew?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: According to Dr. Amoah, CRIG is responsible for testing all agro chemicals and equipment that are used in the production of the mandate crops. Is that the position?
A: Yes that is correct.
Q: Do you use fertilizers for cashew and shea nut?
A: Yes we do.
Q: To your knowledge, what is the relationship between CRIG and Cocobod?
A: CRIG is a subsidiary of Cocobod.
Q: During the tenure of 1st accused, Dr. Stephen Kwabena Opuni as C.E, did you personally know him?
A: I stated earlier in this Court that I met him only once when he came on his familiarization tour after his appointment.
Q: According to Dr. Amoah, when a company wants its fertilizer to be tested, it will apply to Cocobod to the schedule officer who is normally the Deputy Chief Executive in charge of Agronomy and Quality Control. Can you confirm this statement?
A: Yes that is correct.
Q: Then he states that the Deputy Chief Executive will then put a covering letter to this application addressed to the Executive Director of CRIG to carry out the research and submit a report to Cocobod to be forwarded to the company. Is that what pertains?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: Can you confirm further that as he states; Dr. Amoah that once the sample is received, it is forwarded to a committee called a committee for testing chemicals and machine. Is that the position?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: He states further that if it is fertilizer, it goes to the Soil Science Division and it is first given to the head of the Soil Science Division.
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: How many fertilizers tests have you worked on or have you tested in your time at CRIG up to today?
A: I have not counted, but it will be more than 10.
Q: When the head of the Soil Science Division refers the fertilizer to a scientist it does not mean that the head does not take part in the testing. Is that not the case?
A: That is the case.
Q: When, therefore, Dr. Franklin Amoah (PW1) stated that when the sample is forwarded, it is the Scientist who does the job alone that could not be true. I am putting it to you?
A: That will not be in all cases.
Q: Before the test is done, a budget is drawn with respect to the cost involved with the test and it has to be paid by the applicant company whose fertilizer is being tested before the testing is done?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: The budget for the testing is drawn by the head of the Soil Science Division and not by the individual scientist who is testing the fertilizer. Is that the position?
A: That is not correct in all cases.
Q: The other step too is that they will also inform the company to bring the samples of the fertilizer they required for the testing as stated by Dr. Amoah in his evidence?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: So the sample of fertilizer, which is submitted initially with the application is not necessarily what would be tested by the Soil Science Division. As the Soil Science Division will now inform the applicant company of the quantity of fertilizer it requires to conduct the test?
A: That is correct.
Q: When this additional sample is delivered, it is delivered straight to the Soil Science Division who will take delivery to conduct their test. That is the position?
A: That is correct.
Q: And when it is delivered it is the head of the Soil Science Division who will either take delivery of what had to be tested or authorize who should take delivery. That is the position. Is that not it?
A: That is correct.
Q: The Executive Director of CRIG at this point cannot know the fertilizer which is to be tested because he will not be part of the chain of delivery of the fertilizer brought for testing?
A: Yes, at that point that is correct.
Q: When lithovit was being delivered, according to the then head of the Soil Science Division, Mr. A.A. Afrifa, he took delivery of the lithovit. You don’t have any reason to doubt that. Do you?
A: He said so.
Q: He also states that the lithovit, which he took possession of and, which he tested was liquid. That is so. Is it?
A: Yes. I have heard him say that.
Q: If you cast your mind back, when Dr. Alfred Arthur (PW2) purported to have done the test on Cocoa Nti fertilizer, he claimed before the investigative body i.e. Dr. Odoi Committee, which investigated him, which he took possession of the Cocoa Nti samples, which were brought in a truck to CRIG to be tested. Is that correct?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: So you Jerome Agbesi Dogbatse, as a Soil Scientist at CRIG conducting test on fertilizers have also received samples of fertilizer on the instructions of the head of Soil Science Division. Is that not the position?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: Between the person who receives the sample to be tested directly from the applicant company and the head of CRIG, the Executive Director, the person who receives it is in a better position with respect to the identity of the sample received and tested?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: At CRIG when fertilizers are being tested, they are tested for their efficacy with respect to cocoa yield and that necessarily implies that it is not on seedlings as an end in itself. That is the position?
A: That is not correct. Some fertilizers are specifically produced for young cocoa so it is not the case that all fertilizers tested at the Soil Science Division are meant for matured cocoa.
Q: But as you stand here, you are aware that in the case of lithovit, it was tested as to its efficacy in respect of matured cocoa?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: When it comes to the test of fertilizers, what is the proximate analysis test?
A: It is the composition of the fertilizer.
Q: In fact that is the first test, which is conducted on every fertilizer?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: The second test is the phytotoxicity test?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: And that is done to ensure that there is a safe range for the fertilizer to be applied on the seedlings or the plant. That is the position?
A: That is not correct. The range is rather for the plant and not for the fertilizer.
Q: What do you mean by your answer that the range is for plant and not for fertilizer?
A: What I meant by that is, the range for the plant of the application rate for the fertilizer should be such that the different application rate that would be taken to the field is safe for the plant and when I say safe, it means it will not scotch or burn the plant because it is a foliar fertilizer and the delicate foliage of the plant is what will receive the fertilizer.
Q: You stated correctly when you appeared before Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah committee that you can draw inferences from a test done on seedlings and conclude that the fertilizer will be suitable for a fully grown cocoa. Do you remember that?
A: Yes I do.
Q: So it is not true to state that for one to test the efficacy of a fertilizer on cocoa, you have to do it for at least two to three years. That is correct?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: After the test report is done, according to Dr. Amoah in his evidence in Court, it is sent to the CTCM for vetting. That is what pertains there in CRIG.
A: Yes that is correct.
Q: Dr. Alfred Arthur has never stated that he did the test on lithovit alone on his own without any other person?
A: That is a piece of information for me.
Q: You being in the Soil Science Division of CRIG, you are aware that it is not the norm or usual practice for an individual scientist at the Soil Science Division to on his own to conduct a test on fertilizer which is being tested by CRIG?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: and in fact from your evidence including your statements to EOCO and CID, when Dr. Alfred Arthur took you round after your employment in CRIG in 2013 and showed you plants on which fertilizers including lithovit was being tested, he never said he was testing it on his own but rather it was the test being done by the Soil Science Division. Is that correct?
A: It was Mr. Afrifa who took myself and Dr. Alfred Arthur to the nursery and not Dr. Alfred Arthur. Dr. Alfred Arthur never mentioned to me that he was doing the testing alone.
Q: At the time you were taken round, between Mr. Afrifa and Dr. Alfred Arthur, you knew that the test was being done by the Soil Science Division and that was what you were told by Mr. Afrifa, the head of the division?
A: Yes that is correct.
Q: According to Dr. Amoah, please confirm it, that after the scientific report has been written and vetted by the CTCM, a covering letter accompanying the scientific report is sent to the Executive Director of CRIG to sign. Can you confirm that?
A: Yes. After approval by the CTCM, a letter is sent to the Executive Director to sign.
Q: So you can confirm that the Executive Director of CRIG as stated by Dr. Amoah though signs the letter, he is not the person who originates the letter or wrote the letter but rather the CTCM?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: In Cocobod and in CRIG, it is the usual practice that letters, which are signed by the signatories do not necessarily mean as in this case that the signatories to those letters are the once who generated those letters. You can confirm that?
A: Yes, I can confirm that.
Q: Having been at the Soil Science Division for over 10 years. You can confirm that all approval letters for fertilizers are sent to the Deputy Chief Executive Agronomy and Quality Control for his approval or otherwise?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: But having worked in CRIG, you are aware that when a fertilizer is approved by Cocobod based on recommendation of CRIG, the practice which existed up to 2016 the company was directed to contact CRIG and at that stage it was CRIG, which dealt with the company with respect to the certificate to be issued?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: You would confirm with Dr. Amoah’s testimony that the certificate is issued by the CTCM for Executive Director’s signature and in his absence the Deputy Executive Director?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: Once again the certificate is signed by the Executive Director, but he is not the person who originates the certificate. You can confirm that?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: PW1, Dr. Amoah informs this Court that all certificates irrespective of when they are issued expires on 31st December of any particular year?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: So you can confirm that “once a certificates expires and a company so wishes to renew its certificate, the company has to apply through Cocobod of its intent”. Is that not it?
A: Yes.
Q: The letter is then forwarded by Cocobod to CRIG for CRIG to take steps to renew the certificate. That is the position?
A: Yes.
Q: According to (PW1) Dr Franklin Amoah, once this letter comes from Cocobod to CRIG the company, which has applied for a renewal for its certificate would be invoiced on how much it would cost to do the re-evaluation. You can confirm that this position is the practice in COCOBOD?
A: Yes.
Q: When payment is made, what CRIG now does is to go to the open market and purchase samples of this fertilizer that they are re-evaluating on the open market or from the company or obtain some from the farmers who use it. That is what CRIG does. Is that correct?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: If I would quote Dr. Amoah in his evidence in 2018. He states on page 20 of the proceedings of that day. It is contained in volume one of the record page 165. “My lord, our most reliable source of sampling is from the open market…” Having worked in the Soil Science Division and also having taken part in re-evaluation of fertilizers, which has led to renewal of certificates, you can confirm that that is the existing practice?
A: Yes.
Q: In fact as part of the re-evaluation, you test the efficacy of the fertilizer to see whether it is the same i.e. the nutrient are the same as the original fertilizer, which was first tested and for which a first certificate was issued. That is the case?
A: Yes.
Q: After testing for the efficacy, one of the cardinal activities of the re-evaluation exercise is also to “interview farmers who have used that particular fertilizer before about the opinion of the fertilizer especially its efficacy before the certificate may be renewed”. This is what happens. Is that not so?
A: Yes. That is the case.
Q: Before you can test the efficacy of a fertilizer for re-evaluation, you definitely would have had access to the file of the tested fertilizer when it was first brought to CRIG because that would show the nutrient of what was tested. That is correct?
A: It is rather the report and not the file.
Q: Just like the test, when it comes to the re-evaluation of these fertilizers including lithovit, you didn’t work alone on the re-evaluation leading to the renewal of the certificate?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: How many of you were Soil scientists in the Soil Science Division in 2016?
A: We were four.
Q: Definitely because the re-evaluation concerns a renewal of a tested fertilizer, in this case lithovit in 2016, even though you were a team as a Soil Scientists, your report will have been shared with the other soil scientists at the Soil Science Division?
A: The re-evaluation report is presented to CTCM; not shared to scientists.
Q: Dr. Alfred Arthur to your knowledge as at 2016 was a member of the CTCM?
A: Yes.
Q: In your evaluation report, one of the cardinal things you state is the nature of the fertilizer; that is the key. Is that so?
A: Yes.
Q: And when you, Jerome Agbesi Dogbatse, sent your re-evaluation report, you stated clearly that lithovit is a liquid fertilizer to the CTCM in your report?
A: Yes. In the report of the evaluation team and not Jerome Agbesi Dogbatse’s report.
Q: In fact, Dr. Alfred Arthur never complained to you in 2016 that the lithovit, which you evaluated as part of the team whose report was sent by the evaluation team to the CTCM was not liquid?
A: Yes, he never complained.
Q: He never complained to any person in CRIG to your knowledge that lithovit which he, together with other scientists tested was not liquid?
A: Yes, he never complained to me.
Q: I am putting it to you that as scientists, when it comes to fertilizer, if what Dr. Alfred Arthur together with others tested when lithovit was sent to CRIG for testing was not liquid, he would have immediately complained to the CTCM with respect to what was re-evaluated?
A: Yes that is obvious, he will do that.
Q: All the processes for the re-evaluation for renewal certificates for fertilizers which you listed were followed in 2016 specifically with respect to lithovit and other fertilizers, which were evaluated by the team of which you were part?
A: Yes.
Q: In 2016, when this re-evaluation was done, lithovit was found to be effective with respect to the nutrient. That is so?
A: Yes.
Q: It is, therefore, right to say that Dr. Amoah who was the then head of CRIG when the sample was submitted for testing did not see and or receive the actual samples, which were tested because that is not part of his schedule?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: According to Dr. Amoah in his evidence to the Court on 16th July, 2018, on page 24 of the day’s proceedings, after the test report was brought to him, he interrogated the report and had a discussion with Mr. A. A. Afrifa. Are you aware of that?
A: No.
Q: At the Soil Science Division, did you have divisional meetings amongst the scientist where you discuss fertilizers?
A: No.
Q: Did you have weekly or monthly meetings where you discussed the work generally of the Soil Science Division?
A: Amongst scientists no but for the entire division yes, we do have meetings.
Q: Then with respect to scientists, the body which discussed fertilizers generally in CRIG is the CTCM.
A: That is not correct. The CTCM discusses reports on fertilizers.
And the CTCM is made up of scientists of various divisions of CRIG. That is so?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: The fertilizer and specifically lithovit that you evaluated in 2016 was obtained from the open market and or from the farmers as this was the best approach or best practice in respect of re-evaluation?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: No adverse finding was made against lithovit liquid fertilizer in that re-evaluation in 2016 by the team of which you were part?
A: Yes.
Q: Because it was based on the favourable re-evaluated report on lithovit, which was sent to the CTCM who also approved the re-evaluation report that is why the certificate for lithovit liquid fertilizer was renewed?
A: Yes.
Q: In fact, having taken part in the re-evaluation of lithovit liquid fertilizers in 2016, you can confirm to this Court that the re-evaluation team did its work on merit?
A: Yes.
