Q. Mr Dodoo, you mentioned this morning in court that letters were also written by the Procurement Unit for the approval for sole sourcing for fungicides and insecticides in 2013/2014?
A. Yes.
Q. Who wrote this letter?
A. Letters in respect of procurement emanate from the Procurement Unit to be signed by the CE.
Q. Did you see any of these letters?
A. Yes my lord, copies of these letters, and as Director of Audit, I saw all of them. When I assumed office as the Director of Finance in April 2014… Payments were made to a number of fertiliser and fungicide companies… I saw most of these letters.
Q. With respect to the PPA letters, can you have a look at these letters?
A. Yes. This is a letter from COCOBOD to the PPA dated 19/2014. Heading: “Application for approval to sole source fungicide/insecticides for the Codpec 2013/14.”
Q. What letter is this?
A. This letter was written by the Procurement Unit, with inputs from the Codpec/hi-tech unit when one looks at the distribution list.
DPP: My lord, I have an objection. The document is not in evidence.
Counsel: My lord, we want to tender this document.
DPP: We still have an objection.
Counsel: My lord, we will withdraw it.
Q. According to the prosecution, Exhibit S is evident that at the time Exhibit P, which is the application to PPA to sole source the purchase of Lithovit Fertilizer, there was no price quotation from Agricult Ghana Limited, what do have to say to this?
A. My lord, when the lawyers shown me this letter at their office, I asked them where are the other letters?
Q. What do you mean by the others letters?
A. I told the lawyers that I recalled that there should be or there were similar letters written to other companies. I explained to them that this letter headed ‘Request for quotation” is only soliciting information to help the Procurement Unit prepare the notification of contract award to the suppliers. And so, there should be more than one letter. I further explained to the lawyers that when they look at the content of the letter, it asked for the delivery period, delivery site, terms of payment, and the letter further requested for response by the close of the next day. That letter dated 25/02/2014. I asked for response by close of work on Wednesday, February 20, 2014.
Q. Now, you said you informed the lawyers that other companies received similar letter?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you have a look at Exhibit P and tell us which companies you are referring?
A. I informed the lawyers that Weinco Ghana Limited got a letter.
Q. If you say Weinco got a letter, what letter are you referring to?
A. My lord, Exhibit S was sent and was properly addressed to 1. Weinco Ghana Limited; 2. Louis Preyfus; 3. Chemico Limited. 4. Sidalco Ghana Limited and Sidalco Ghana Limitrd, and in addition to what I’m holding as Exhibit S.
Q. If you please, can you clarify a bit? If you say Exhibit S clarified herein and above. It is the same Exhibit S, which was sent?
DPP: This is not cross-examination, but evidence in chief. But he is asking leading questions.
Interjection: The concern raised was addressed by the court.
A. The content with the address… I told the lawyer to get more information. On 25/02/2014, a letter was addressed to Weinco Ghana Limited: “Dear Sir, Requests for quotation,” and, my lord, the item mentioned is for them to do delivery. Same letters, but depending on the product and what the company has to offer… the lawyers later informed me that they have written to the court and the court has provided them with copies of the letters that I drew their attention to. The lawyers showed me the letters they got from the court, and I looked at them, and I agreed that those were the letters I was expecting.
Q. Can you have a look at the letter to Wernco dated…?
A. Yes my lord, I will.
Counsel: We will like to tender this document.
DPP: I have no objection.
A2 & A3 Counsel: My lord, we have no objection.
Court: Evidence not objected to, and marked as Exhibit 76.
Q. Can you have a look at this other one, which is a letter dated 25/02/2014?
Counsel: I want to tender this document.
DPP: I have no objection.
Court: Document admitted as Exhibit 77, 78 & 79.
Q. Can you look at Exhibit 77?
A. My lord, it is a letter addressed to Louis Preyfus, and the request to purchase cocoa … fertiliser. The letter requested from them to provide quotation, delivery period, delivery site, and the terms of payment. The letter is dated 25/02/2014; they are to submit their response by closed of work on 26/02/2014.
Q. What about Exhibit 78?
A. Exhibit 78 heading is “Request for quotation to supply 150,000 litres of Sidalo 6:0:20 fertiliser.” They are to provide information on delivery period, delivery site, and terms of payment. And they are to submit their response by close of work on Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Q. Can you look at Exhibit 79?
A. Exhibit 79, it is a letter addressed to Sidalsco, heading, “Request for quotation.” They are to supply 150,000 litres of Sidalsco 10:10:10 Fertiliser. They are to provide information on delivery period, delivery site, and terms of payment. And they are to submit their response by close of work on Wednesday, February 26, 2014.
Q. Can you have a look at Exhibit 80? What is Exhibit 80?
A. Exhibit 80 is a letter to Chemico Ghana Limited. It is headed: “Request for quotation.” They are to supply 400,000 bags of cocoa feed fertiliser.
Q. Who wrote all these letters, Exhibits 76-80?
A. My lord, all these letters were written by the Procurement Unit, soliciting information for the preparation of notification for contract award.
Q. According to the PW7, that is the police investigator, Exhibit S, which is in his words, was unknown in the Procurement Unit, and that nobody in the Procurement Unit knew about Exhibit S. What do you have to say to that?
A. My lord, it is not correct. When one looks at the letters that have just been marked as Exhibit 76-80, they all were written together with Exhibit S by the Procurement Unit. My lord, the interesting thing about these exhibits – S, 76 to 80 – is that they follow each other in a chronological order based on Exhibit N. My lord, the way this honourable court has numbered the exhibits, and then when you look at the references at the exhibits, you will see on top of Agricult the reference number ending with 122, we have Sidalco 6: 0: 20, the reference number ends with 123; Sidalco 10:10:10 fertiliser ends with reference number 124, and on top of Sidalco, we have Chemico Ghana Limited, the reference number ends with 125. On the top of Louis Preyfus, the reference number ends with 126. The Weinco Ghama Limited, which is on top of the list, ends with the reference number 127. All these letters were written by the Procurement Unit soliciting information.
Q. Can you have a look at Exhibit T, which is a response from Agricult Ghana Limited?
A. Yes.
Q. According to the prosecution, Exhibit T was written in furtherance of a breach of the PPA Act, namely, the quotation was sent after COCOBOD had sent an application for sole sourcing on the 19/02/2014 that is Exhibit N?
A. My lord, that is not correct. In my earlier submission, I explained the … Codpec/Hi-tech unit in the procurement of fertilisers and other agrochemicals; I informed this court that Codpec/Hi-tech is a specialised unit with scientists from CRIG. They are the ones who indicate the type of fertilisers and agrochemicals to apply within a particular year. In their submissions, they indicate the name of the fertiliser, company dealing in it, quantities, and then they provide price, because they deal with the suppliers. So with their knowledge from CRIG, and their continuous interactions with CRIG, they provide the list of approved fertilisers and other agrochemicals with their relevant prices. The Procurement Unit will pick the data and write to PPA. So prices are available to the Procurement Unit, and that is why when the procurement deals with fertilisers and other agrochemicals, they copy the Codpec/Hi-tech unit.
Case adjourned to Thursday, December 9.
