Dr. Gilbert Anim Kwapong, a former Executive Director of Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG) says a critical information relevant to the trial of Dr. Stephen Kwabena Opuni and two others is not available to the court.
According to him, this purported document contain minutes written by the Attorney-General’s first Prosecution Witness (PW1), Dr. Franklin Manu Amoah, who he succeeded as the Executive Director of CRIG, in September 2014.
According to Dr. Kwapong, who has been subpoenaed to give evidence in the court, presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, the initial certificate covering lithovit fertiliser was signed by PW1 and instructed Scientists at CRIG to issue same to the supplier, Agricult Ghana limited, within a space of eight days.
Testifying under cross examination by Mrs Evelyn Keelson, Chief State Attorney (CSA), he said PW1 signed the certificate a day after CRIG was copied a letter sent from COCOBOD to the Chief Executive Officer of Agricult Ghana Limited.
He added that, the action that PW1 took circumvented the procedures in CRIG to order the Committee on Testing Chemical and Machine (CTCM) to issue the certificate.
However, Dr. Opuni’s 8th defence Witness (PW8) told the court that the CTCM, which is made up of Scientists from the various division of CRIG refused to issue the certificate on the authority that it did not receive a formal request from Agricult Ghana Limited.
As a result, the original certificate of lithovit was signed by him in the year 2015, almost two years since its introduction to COCOBOD.
Although this information is not available to the court, DW8 claims that he has the electronic version of the document and was willing to assist the court.
The Prosecution, however, said the Witness’ long narration was only to cover up for his lack of knowledge of what transpired at the time the fertiliser was introduced, as well as to justify why he signed the certificate later on, without basis.
According to the Prosecution, the Witness signed the lithovit certificate with active ingredients that are absent on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) accompanying lithovit folia fertiliser.
Furthermore, the Witness is an Agronomist and not a Soil Scientist or a fertiliser expert, as well as has no idea when lithovit was introduced to COCOBOD by Siedu Agongo, on behalf of Agricult Ghana Ltd.
The Witness, in response to the questions, said the information on MSDS, accompanying the lithovit was inadequate, hence the shortfall in the active ingredients listed on the MSDS as against what is captured on the certificate by the Scientists.
He added that he signed the certificate because he had no reason to doubt the integrity of the Scientists some of whom are still in employment with CRIG.
Dr. Kwapong mentioned that even though he was not occupying the Executive Director Position at the time lithovit was introduced to COCOBOD, records are kept for institutional memory, which he has also benefited from.
Additionally, with his almost 30 years work experience with CRIG, it could be said that he had fair knowledge of how every division of CRIG operates.
Siedu Agonga and his company Agricult Ghana Limited are the other accused persons standing trial with Dr Opuni for allegedly supplying substandard fertiliser, causing the country to lose some GH¢270 million.
Cross examination by Evelyn Keelson;
Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong you told the court that before you became the Executive Director of CRIG, you were a Chief Research Scientist. Is that correct?
A. Yes my Lord.
Q. Where were you stationed?
A. My Lord, prior to becoming the Acting Executive Director, a year before I was at Tafo, but a year before then I was at Afosu, near new Abirim for 8 years.
Q. So when did you come from Afosu to New Tafo?
A. My Lord, I think either very late 2012 or early 2013 and my Lord, I didn’t come to Tafo as the Executive Director, I came as the Head of Agronomy.
Q. And you became Acting Executive Director on 5th September, 2014, is that right?
A. My Lord, that is correct.
Q. You told the court in the course of your testimony that you are not a soil Scientist, is that correct?
A. My Lord that is correct.
Q. You also told the court in your testimony that you are not an expert in fertilizer, is that correct?
A. That is correct. I have to add that having worked at CRIG for close to 30 years, I have acquired an amount of knowledge on the technical and practical things to do with all the scientific divisions including soil science, entomology, pathology, and physiology biochemistry.
Q. You have no idea when lithovit was introduced to COCOBOD by A2 on behalf of A3, is that not so?
A. That is correct.
Q. You also have no idea when lithovit was procured by COCOBOD in 2013/24, 2014/15 and 2015/16 cocoa years, is that not correct?
A. My Lord, that is so because CRIG and for that matter, scientists are not directly involved in procurement at COCOBOD.
Q. You were also not the Executive Director of CRIG when lithovit was tested by CRIG in January 2014, is that not so?
A. My Lord that is so, I was not the Executive Director.
Q. In fact, you have no idea of the nature and composition of the Lithovit fertilizer, which was submitted to CRIG through COCOBOD for testing in May 2013?
A. My Lord, that is right, but I mentioned to this court that the product was mentioned and introduced to me sometime after I have become the Acting Executive Director.
Q. The nature and composition of fertilizers, which are submitted for testing are normally contained in what we call the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), is that not so?
A. My Lord that is so, but I will explain further. Fertilizer companies in Ghana basically, blend or compound sprint fertilizer materials. The blend would usually contain different fertilizer materials, and a fertilizer is any substance that can supply at least one nutrient material to a plant.
So as I have indicated, any company that is blending fertilizer or compounding fertilizer cannot have a single material safety data sheet because each fertilizer would have a separate MSDS. My Lord, what I know is that most companies will come with only one MSDS that is what I know.
Q. So from what you have said that one MSDS is for a single fertilizer, is that not so?
A. My Lord, it depends on the type of fertilizer that was submitted.
Q. Now I’m putting it to you that in the case of Lithovit fertilizer, the MSDS, which accompanied the fertilizer, which was submitted for testing by A2 on behalf of A3 is Exhibit
A1?
Benson objection: there is no evidence on record that A2 was the person who, in his personal capacity, submitted the fertilizer and the MSDS to COCOBOD is Exhibit A1?
Prosecution: There’s an overwhelming evidence in this court…
Codjoe: in your question to this witness this morning, you have made it very clear he wasn’t there when the fertilizer was submitted in May 2013 to COCOBOD. How can you now say it was A2 who submitted on behalf of A3.
By court: the question has to be reframed if the prosecution want to ask empathic question as to what A2 and A3 submitted.
Benson: the question I objected to is that there is no evidence.
Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong have a look at Exhibit A1, which is the MSDS of Lithovit, have you seen it before?
A. My Lord, I’m seeing it for the first time.
Q. I’m putting it to you that this is the MSDS, which accompanied the Lithovit fertilizer, which was submitted to COCOBOD in May 2013?
A. My Lord what this particular means. My Lord, I don’t see this document to be providing adequate information. Number one, “identification of the substance/ preparation” of this document “lithovit is a carbon dioxide (C02)foliar fertilizer for outdoor use ” Number two, chemical nature – calcium carbonate from natural limestone with micro nutrients.
Readily soluble. My Lord, I want us to underline readily soluble. The composition is indicated here – 84.5% calcium carbonate, Oxygen 4.6% magnesium carbonate 7.6% silicone dioxide, 0.75% iron, 166miligrams per kilogram manganese.
My Lord, when you come to the second page, that is the MSDS, point 6 – accidental release measure 6.1, personal precaution, avoid creating dust. 7.1.2. My Lord I wish to emphasise here that foliar fertilizers as packaged usually come as liquid.
However, foliar fertilizers are in two forms, soluble solids and liquid concentrates. The soluble solids to avoid what authors of this document are saying that dust must be avoided, they pulbarised or micronides to make the solid more soluble. So most manufacturers who blend fertilizers would acquire either the concentrates or soluble.
They dissolved this in appropriate amount of water to get concentrates to which they add other nutrients elements. So in the case of Ghana cocoa soils require the three major nutrients elements that is N for Nitrogen, P for phosphorus and K for potassium.
My Lord the MSDS we have here is only providing a components, or some components, of what is required for use of fertilizer in Ghana especially for matured cocoa. Anybody who buys a components of the material that is required for the manufacturing of a fertilizer product as I mentioned will get the safety data sheet for the components they have obtained which will blend with others.
Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong so when an MSDS together with a sample fertilizer is submitted to CRIG through COCOBOD for testing, the fertilizer goes through testing and a report is issued on the fertilizer after the testing, is that not correct?
A. My Lord that is correct.
Q. In testing the fertilizer by CRIG, the scientists will take into consideration the MSDS in addition to their own testing before they come out with a report, is that not so?
A. My Lord, I assumed the other testing would include verifying the composition or substance that have been submitted to them. If that is the case, then my answer is yes.
Q. The report, which is submitted to COCOBOD with recommendations would state the nature and composition of the substance together with the recommended application of the fertilizer by farmers?
A. My Lord, that is not so. I’m saying so because I have stated that this MSDS is inadequate. In a well prepared MSDS the manufacturer would state the recommended application rate to be used by farmers. My lord, this document does not say so, all others you have said is right apart from the recommended application rate.
Q. The scientists at CRIG when they are done with their testing of the fertilizer make recommendations on how the fertilizer is to be applied, is that not so.
A. Yes my Lord. I want to emphasize that scientists would take the manufacturer’s recommended rate and vary it at different levels to identify the optimum application rate that would give the best value for money. From my point of view, this material MSDS is meant for manufacturers and not for the farmers.
The manufactures who produce the concentrates will have to develop their own MSDS because what they have is a blend containing other fertilizer materials and indicate how it is to be used including the application rate.
Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong, I have long moved from the MSDS and manufacturers, and I’m on what CRIG Scientists find through their own testing of the sample. That, the recommendations they make after their testing is what is sent to COCOBOD for approval or not, is that not so?
A. My Lord that is not so because it cannot be made without information from the MSDS and that information is not here.
Q. So what report do the scientists send to COCOBOD for approval after the testing?
A. My Lord, I did not completely disagree with the learned prosecution, she has mentioned all of it already.
Q. After the approval of the report by COCOBOD, COCOBOD would ask that a certificate be issued for that fertilizer?
A. That is so, but in some instances the company is directed to see CRIG for any help or assistance and it implies that you must come for the certificate.
Q. When a fertilizer, which has been tested is approved by COCOBOD, and the certificate issued, the supplier is required to supply the same fertilizer, which was tested and approved by COCOBOD is that not so?
A. My Lord that is so.
Q. Now you gave a statement to EOCO, Exhibit 127, in that statement you stated that “if a company that submitted samples of the original product to CRIG fails to deliver the product of the same quality to COCOBOD, then the company should be made to withdraw the product from circulation and not just that but should also be sanctioned for supplying fake product or less than desirable product ” that is what you stated, is that not so?
A. My Lord that is so.
Q. Indeed, you stated further that a product that deviates from the sample testing can be classified as a fake product in terms of quality and efficacy, is that not correct?
A. My Lord that is also correct.
Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong, you have already told this court that when lithovit fertilizer was tested and approved by COCOBOD, you were not the Executive Director of CRIG?
A. Yes.
Q. You never saw the report of Lithovit fertilizer to COCOBOD?
A. My Lord I saw the report in this court and I have read it.
Q. I’m putting it to you that the Lithovit fertilizer, which was tested and approved by COCOBOD through A1 was not what was procured by COCOBOD and supplied by A2 and A3 in 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16, I’m putting that to you?
A. My Lord, I’m not aware of COCOBOD procurement.
Q. I’m further putting it to you that the Lithovit fertilizer, which was tested and approved by COCOBOD in 2014 when you were not the Executive Director of CRIG, was not a liquid fertilizer, but a fertilizer powdery in nature and form?
A. My Lord, I have consistently said in this court and also at EOCO and the CID, lithovit is liquid foliar fertilizer. My Lord, I want to go back to the MSDS, which advises that one must avoid creating dust, I would ask how one can apply a powdery foliar fertilizer into the air without creating dust? And appropriately who must apply that dust?
Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong the scientists at CRIG in Exhibit B1, which you only saw in this courtroom tested a powdery substance and indicated in their report how that powdery substance is supposed to be applied by farmers including recommended composition to be used, all that is contained in the report?
A. My Lord, my problem with this report is that the composition of the fertilizer is not clearly stated. And number two, if I have been asked to review this document, I would ask a simple question how do you expect the farmers to take 50 grams, it is not practicable to ask a farmer to weigh 50 grams and add to a certain volume of water to be applied in a farm setting.
My Lord, this is not the first time we have used foliar fertilizers in our farms. Farmers have been supplied foliar fertilizers over the years, and they are given concentrates and the bottle as a measuring cup, and the cup is calibrated or graduated, and the farmers are taught to apply a certain recommended volume to the measuring can. So my Lord the scientists who did this work, did a shoddy work.
Q. Exhibit C, I’m putting it to you that Exhibit C is signed by A1 approved the report from CRIG Exhibit B1 and the approval stated clearly that management of COCOBOD had approved Exhibit B1?
A. Truly, it has been signed by the Chief Executive of COCOBOD, it is only CRIG that has the mandate to test and recommend product for approval. What I said about the report is my personal opinion. My Lord, once I have the opportunity to see this document again, yesterday, I asked for a copy that was sent to CRIG, which gave us the information that we should go ahead and assist the company for any information or any assistance they may require.
My Lord, on the copy that came to CRIG there are several minutes that instructed how the letter must be handled, and my Lord that copy would be really relevant to the court.
Q. I’m putting it to you, the recommendations that was sent to COCOBOD was clearly approved is that not it?
A. That is so.
Q. I’m further putting it to you that aside the testing of Lithovit foliar fertilizer by CRIG in powdery form in 2013/14, no lithovit liquid fertilizer was tested by CRIG?
A. My Lord, I’m not aware of that.
Q. From your own handing over notes, which was tendered in evidence as Exhibit 129, it is clear that the only lithovit fertilizer, which was tested was what was tested between 2013 and 2014?
*A. My Lord, I have looked at the document here and the active ingredients here appears to be different from what was stated in the report and also from what is in the MSDS.
Q. Exhibit 129 is your own handing over notes, is that not so?
A. My Lord that is so, the handing over notes was prepared by the heads of the various divisions and compiled by the scientific secretary. I have indicated that the composition here in this handing over notes is different from what has been stated in the scientific report and the MSDS.
Q. I’m putting it to you that the composition of fertilizer in Exhibit D, the certificate on lithovit foliar fertilizer, signed by Dr. FM Amoah, is as contained in the report approved by COCOBOD?
A. My Lord, I have indicated that companies produce blends with components from various sources, that is the MSDS did not indicate the presence of P and K on the MSDS. But this certificate all contain P and K that is the Exhibits B1 contains zero P and K, which is missing on the MSDS which is Exhibit A1.
Q. I’m putting it to you that the composition of Lithovit fertilizer as found by CRIG scientists after testing the substance,which was handed over to them has been stated in the report Exhibit B1 and it is the same composition stated on the certificate issued to A3, the supplier which is Exhibit D?
A. My Lord, that is so, but the basis being the MSDS cannot be so, it doesn’t have two major ingredients in there.
Q. I’m putting it to you that what is approved for the supplier is the result of the test by CRIG and the MSDS is only form part of their work?
A. My Lord, the chemical that came to CRIG for testing was accompanied by the MSDS, giving every information necessary for testing. So after testing, the report and the subsequent certificate shouldn’t have anything that is not mentioned in the MSDS. Significantly iron is mentioned in the MSDS, manganese is also mentioned, but it is missing on this certificate.
Q. You yourself a while ago told this court that the MSDS is not conclusive that is why the CRIG scientists are required to test the substance again, is that not so?
A. My Lord, I believe I have been taken out of context. What you are saying is partly true. My lord, I indicated that manufactures in Ghana are into blends and they put together various fertilizer materials, and therefore, this single MSDS cannot represent the entirety of the product.
Q. It is rather the certificates which you signed Exhibit 4 and 4a, which have no basis at all, because the Lithovit which was tested and approved by COCOBOD as seen by Exhibit B1 and D, did not have the chemical composition which you put on those certificates?
A. My Lord the certificates I signed compared to the very first certificate indicate that certificate has basis contrary to what is being said.
My Lord, it is significant that we have shifted from a position where it was indicated that the MSDS was of utmost importance and gradually we have abandoned that position. In the MSDS we have iron and magnesium, we don’t have potassium and phosphorus.
And I must indicate that the material that we have here is a blend and must contained all that is mentioned on MSDS on lithovit, therefore the report that was presented by the scientists and the subsequent certificate is basically problematic.
Q. I’m putting it to you that Exhibit B1, which is the report on the test conducted by CRIG on the Lithovit submitted did not contain any trace of urea whilst the certificates you signed, Exhibit 4 and 4a contained a whole 5% of urea in the chemical composition?
A. My Lord, the committee prepared this certificate for my signature and as I mentioned in this court, I have no doubt in their integrity. At the time, I was signing these certificates, the CTCM and myself have no idea about the existence of this certificate at the time, all information available was that this certificate has not been issued and signed.
My Lord, that is the reason I’m looking for the letter and the minutes therein. My Lord, yesterday when I asked for that document, it was apparent that the document was not here, per the due diligence I do at Tafo for any certificate that I signed, I keep electronic copies of, so yesterday when it became apparent, I sent a copy of what I have to counsel who subpoenaed me and I can go ahead and narrate what is on it. My Lord, the letter addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of Agricult Limited from COCOBOD and CRIG was copied and that letter was dated 21st January 2014.
Per the certificate, we have here, it was signed on 22nd January 2024, just a day after the letter was issued. My Lord, the letter that is CRIG’s copy was received at CRIG on 29th of January, 2014, on that very day, that is 29thbof January 2014, Dr. Amoah forwarded the letter to the chairman of the CTCM, apparently telling them to issue a certificate for the product.
My Lord, they have already circumvented the procedure and the CTCM to issue and signed certificate on 22nd January 2014. Seven days after he has signed that certificate, he instructed the CTCM to issue the certificate.
The chairman was on leave so the deputy acting on his behalf indicated that a certificate cannot be issued when they have not received a request from the company, so when the chairman resumed work after his leave around 30th of March, 2014, he minuted the document back to Dr. Amoah, indicating that they were unable to issue the certificate because they were still awaiting a request from the company.
In minutes 5, Dr. Amoah indicated that he had no objection. This letter was kept on file on that date till the company presented themselves for a certificate and that was the certificate we issued in 2015, without the knowledge of the certificate Dr. Amoah had issued in 2014.
Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong, this long narration that you have given to the court of what supposedly in January 2014, you were not there?
A. My Lord that is so, but we keep documents for institutional memory and we needed to track that document to sign the new request that has come to us.
Q. I’m putting it to you that because you were not there, you didn’t know what actually had happened and everything you are telling this court on the signing of Exhibit D is only a feeble attempt to justify the certificate you signed without any basis. I’m putting that to you?
A. My Lord, that is not correct and I will explain. My Lord, there was in place a CTCM before I assumed the role of Acting Executive Director. All the members who signed on that document were at post and one is still there as the Deputy Executive Director, Dr. Adu Acheampong.
When the letter got to them it was Dr. Adu Acheampong who indicated that they cannot issued a certificate without a formal request from the company, and that was conveyed to Dr. Amoah who indicated he has no challenge.
So a new request came to CRIG from the company and must go to the CTCM. The CTCM had to referred the document that gave the authorization for the issue. Because they have requested for the request to come to them, they went ahead and prepared the certificate for my signature.
And also before I sign I have to see the document. So my Lord, all that I’m saying is reality and not a conjecture that is why I want that document to be seen by all.
Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong you have indicated that it is not in doubt by Exhibit C that the first accused communicated management approval of the result of Lithovit test by CRIG, by a letter 21st January 2014?
A. My Lord, it is so because it is the responsibility of the Chief Executive or anyone he delegates to sign any letters going outside COCOBOD and it is so with reports on chemical testing that must go to the companies that made the request.
Q. That Exhibit C was signed by A1?
A. That is so, but exhibit C is not the only chemicals.
