The fourth defence witness (DW4) in a cocoa trial, Ambassador Daniel Ohene Agyekum, says Dr. Stephen Kwabena Opuni did not commit any fraud while heading the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
He said Dr. Opuni (A1), who, together with businessman Seidu Agongo (A2) and his company, Agricult Ghana Limited (A3), had been accused of 27 crimes, including defrauding by false pretences, wilfully causing financial loss to the state, money laundering, corruption of public official, and contravention of the Public Procurement Act, worked consistently with the policies of the Board.
Ambassador Ohene Agyekum, a former Board Chairman of COCOBOD, told the Criminal Division ‘1’ of the Accra High Court that there was no instance that Dr. Opuni influenced the procurement process to benefit Seidu Agongo and his company, supplier of Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser.
He added that there was also no instance, as the court had been made to believe, when Seidu Agongo and his company were assisted by Dr. Opuni to perpetrate fraud on COCOBOD in the selling Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser to COCOBOD.
DW4 told the court, presided over by Justice Clemence Honyenuga, on Friday: “With all due respect, my reaction would be, where are all these coming from? A1 during my term of office did not, certainly not perpetrate any fraud. My lord, the Chief Executive of the management of COCOBOD, and with my little knowledge of corporate responsibility, whatever he did was consistent with the policies of the Board.”
Ambassador Ohene Agyekum, under cross-examination by counsel for A2 and A3, Nutifafa Nutsukpi, holding brief for Benson Nutsukpi, said Dr. Opuni could not influence the decision of the Board and the Entity Tender Committee (ETC), because the Board based its decisions on the advice of experts.
The witness also said he doubted whether the University of Ghana Chemistry Department really tested Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser, since he was not aware of any scientific report to that effect, particularly an agrochemical that was tested in a classroom and a conclusion drawn on same.
Excerpts of questions and answers:
Q. Now sir, you told the court at the last sitting that you attended all the meetings of the Entity Tender Committee?
A. That is so my lord.
Q. And you took the court through the process of deliberations and decision-making process of the Entity Tender Committee?
A. That is correct.
Q. Sir, please tell the honourable court whether there are any decisions of the Entity Tender Committee that had been influenced in any way whatsoever by the second and third accused persons.
A. My short answer is that decisions are arrived at due to the process which existed when I was the Chairman of the Board. We were not, and absolutely not, influenced by the second and third accused persons whatsoever.
Q. Sir, would you remember some of the persons you served with on the Entity Tender Committee?
A. Yes, if my memory serves me right, because it has been quite a time. I can’t remember all the names. There was institutional representation, which means that there was a representative of the Attorney-General’s Department; I believe her name was Mrs. Isakah. There was also I believe one Mr. Dodoo who also served on the Entity Tender Committee. I’m not able to recollect any of the other names. We were about seven or nine in number.
Q. In your evidence-in-chief, I’m referring to your witness statement, Exhibits L and M, paragraph 16?
A. Yes my lord, I did refer to Exhibits L and M, which are captured.
Q. Now sir, Exhibit L, dated February 11, 2014, is a letter addressed to the Secretary of Cabinet. Is that correct sir?
A. Correct.
Q. And Exhibit M, dated February 13, 2014, is also a letter from COCOBOD addressed to the Honourable Minister for Finance. Is that correct sir?
A. Correct.
Q. Sir, if you will kindly turn to the 2nd pages of Exhibits L and M, you will see on the tables of those pages, you have the following fertilisers listed; Asasera, Cocoa Master, Cocoa Feed, Sidaco 10:10:10, Sidaco 60:20, and Lithovit. Is that correct sir?
A. What I read here is absolutely correct sir.
Q. And sir, if you take a look at Exhibit N; on the 2nd page of Exhibit N, you will see that the same Asasera, Cocoa Master, Cocoa Feed, Sidaco 10:10:10, Sidaco 60:20, and Lithovit are also listed on the 2nd page of Exhibit N?
A. Correct.
Q. Now Exhibit N is the letter from COCOBOD to PPA seeking approval to sole-source the fertilisers we have just referred to on the 2nd page of Exhibit N. That is correct sir?
A. That is correct.
Q. Please take a look at Exhibit V shown to you now. It is a letter from the PPA to Ghana Cocoa Board dated March 15, 2014, granting COCOBOD approval to sole source Asasera, Cocoa Master, Cocoa Feed, Sidaco 10:10:10, Sidaco 60:20, and Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser. Is that correct sir?
A. That is correct, and that is in accordance with the procedures that I talked about in my previous statement.
Q. Now sir, these fertilisers types contained in Exhibits L, M, N and V were selected by experts of the CODAPEC/HITECH Unit at the time. Is that correct?
A. That is correct my lord. As I tried to explain in my evidence-in-chief, it is the CODAPEC and HITECH which determine the procedures, the quantities and types of fertilisers for every cocoa season.
Q. Now sir, at the ETC’s 54th meeting held in the Board Room of the Cocoa House on March 4, 2014, Asasera, Cocoa Master, Cocoa Feed, Sidaco 10:10:10, Sidaco 60:20, and Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser were approved by the ETC for the CODAPEC/HITECH programme for the 2013/2014 cocoa season. Is that correct?
A. It is correct so far as I can recollect.
Q. Sir, these fertilisers types that were approved by the Board, the ETC, and for the purchase by COCOBOD for the 2013/14 cocoa season were in no way determined by any suppliers of the fertilisers?
A. That is absolutely correct. They were in no way determined by any of the suppliers of the fertilisers.
Q. And sir again, by the policy of the Board that you chaired at the time, all those fertilisers that were bought for CODAPEC/HITECH programme were distributed to the farmers for free. That is correct?
A. That is correct, and if I may add further, the decision to provide fertilisers free of charge was for a very good reason, and as a cocoa farmer’s son and lived with all the difficulties and challenges faced by the cocoa farmers, together with my Board and Entity members, we sincerely believe that providing these items, as well as constructing good accessible roads within the cocoa farming areas was the right thing to do.
Q. Now sir again, on February 8, 2015, the ETC, at its 17th Emergency Meeting held in the Board room of the Cocoa House, approved for the purchase of COCOBOD the following fertilisers: Cocoa Feed, Asasera, Fert Agra Caco, Elite Organic Fertilizer, Lithovit liquid fertilizer and Sidaco Liquid fertilizer (Balance). That is correct?
A. My lord in all sincerity, I don’t have the documents you are referring to.
Q. Now sir, to your recollection, in all of the meetings of the ETC, the members were aware of the goods or services that they were granting COCOBOD approval to procure. Is that correct?
A. That is correct my lord.
Q. Now, what would be your reaction to the 7th prosecution witness who told the court that the ETC did not know what they were approving when they granted the approval to COCOBOD to procure the Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser?
A. My Lord, my immediate reaction would be that piece of evidence is tantamount to insulting the intelligence of the members of the ETC. We knew what we were about. My lord, with all due respect, we were not a bunch of ignoramuses. Even if we were not experts, we were literate enough, knowledgeable enough, and intelligent enough to read and appreciate the distinction between a solid material and liquid material. And in this particular case, through a technical presentation by the experts from CRIG, we clearly understood both the liquid or granular or solid fertilisers that we approved.
Q. Now sir, the court found that Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser, which the Board of COCOBOD and the ETC, all of which you have chaired, had approved and, which COCOBOD bought, was worthless and that the state has received no value for the Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser. What might be your reaction to these findings by the court sir?
A. With all due respect, with emphasis, I find the court findings rather strange to me.
Q. Why would you say so?
A. My Lord, my reason is as follows; 1. As a Board Chairman, I was very much aware that there was a unit within the COCOBOD, which I referred to in my earlier submission, that is to say, CHED. I’m very much aware that that Division was responsible for the monitoring of how the fertilisers and other agrochemicals were applied in the fields and that there was, or there should be such a report by CHED at COCOBOD. I’m aware of my passion for the cocoa farmer, and the farming industry as a whole, that CHED trains the cocoa farmers on the proper application of the fertilisers. And so, my lord, I’m saying that there should be such a report that concluded that Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser was defective.
Q. Sir, how did you get to know about this CHED report?
A. Because of some of the things that went on; some of them were not discussed formally. In an informal way, and because of my passion, I will go and ask questions from those in charge of the programme. In any case, it was the policy of the Board that you don’t similarly purchase fertilisers and distribute them to farmers and subsequently fold your arms and not try to find out whether a particular fertiliser is effective or not. It may be of interest to the court that we also had a representative of the Cocoa Farmers Association, I believe his name was Nana Damoah. I believe he is from the Brong Ahafo Region… so my lord occasionally we share information in terms of the benefits of the programmes and implementations of the policies that we, as a Board, have adopted.
Q. Now, from your experience of chairing the Board and the ETC from January 2014 to January 2017, how easy was it for an individual to gain the procurement or otherwise rig the procurement process for the benefit of a particular product or a particular supplier?
A. That is absolutely impossible. I can’t imagine. It is inconceivable that any particular individual can or could influence the choice or decision to award a contract in favour of that particular person. It is simply impossible, and it could not happen under my watch during my time.
Q. Sir, what would be your reaction to the finding of the court in its rulings on the submission of no case that A2 and 3 were assisted by A1 to perpetrate fraud on COCOBOD by selling the Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser to COCOBOD?
A. With all due respect, my reaction would be where all these are coming from? A1 during my term of office did not, certainly not perpetrate any fraud. My lord, the CE of the management of COCOBOD and with my little knowledge of corporate responsibility, whatever he did was consistent with the policies of the Board.
Q. Now sir, as far as you are aware, and based on your experience as chairman of both the Baird and the ETC at the time, did A1 ever influence the procurement process to benefit A2 and A3?
A. My Lord, I can say as far as I am aware, A1 never acted in a way that could have influenced the decision of either the Board or the ETC. In my poor capacity at both the board and the ETC, such a thing never happened.
Q. Now sir, it is also in evidence in this court from the prosecution witness from the University of Ghana that when they tested the Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser, it had barely any properties that would make it effective. During your turner as the Chairman were you aware of any test that was carried on the Lithovit that came with a similar conclusion?
A. My short answer is no. I was not made aware of any such scientific test.
Q. Sir, since you have left office have you become aware of any test carried out that cast any doubt on the efficiency of Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser that your Board had procured for cocoa farmers?
A. No I was not aware of any such report. I want to conclude, if you can conduct scientific research in a classroom and you draw a conclusion, such as it was drawn by the University Ghana professor, then I would state it was certainly not the same Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser that the Board purchased and provided the farmers free of charge.
Counsel: My lord, that would be all for the witness.
Cross-examination by Chief State Attorney Evelyn Keelson.
Q. Ambassador Ohene Agyekum.
A. Yes.
Q. You were the Board Chair of the Cocoa Board between January 2014 and January 2017?
A. That is correct.
Q. Can you tell the court your professional background?
A. My lord. that would be a very long story.
Q. Make it brief.
A. I joined the Ghana Foreign Service many years ago, and for the most part, I served as a professional diplomat until I retired in 1983. My lord, that sums up my professional background.
Court: The case is adjourned to June 24 at10:00am.
