Dr Franklin Manu Amoah, former Executive Director of Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG), has distanced Dr Stephen KwabenaOpuni from the testing of Lithovit Foliar Fertiliser.
According to him, DrOpuni, former Chief Executive of Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) did not play any role in the testing of the fertiliser, particularly at the time lithovit samples were submitted to CRIG, the latter had not been appointed.
Moreover, a letter accompanying the report onlithovit that claimed the fertiliser was tested on matured cocoa trees instead of seedlings might be an oversight. The circumstance leading to the generation of this letter has nothing to do with Dr Opuni, he insisted.
Dr A.F. Amoah said “No, I did not succumb to his pressure. The lithovit did not come during Opuni’s time. It came before he came, and so did metacide.”
These were Dr A.F. Amoah’s answers to Dr Yaw Adu-Ampomah’s committee way back in 2017, as contained in Exhibit H and read by Jerome AbgesiDogbatse, to the Land Division of the Accra High Court last week Thursday.
Jerome Abgesi Dogbatse is a Senior Soil Scientist at the Soil Science Division of CRIG and was compelled to read sections of Exhibit H while being led in evidence by Benson Nutsukpui, Counsel for Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana.
Jerome himself has testified that the Soil Science Division had completed testing of lithovit and other fertilisers before he was employed on November 4, 2013.
He also confirmed that Dr Opuni had not been appointed Chief Executive of COCOBOD before he was employed. Dr Opuni was appointed in December 2013, and assumed office in January 2014.
Interdiction and recalled
Mr.Nutsukpui further led witness to establish that despite the controversy surrounding the testing of lithovit, there were others like Cocoa Nti fertilizer, supplied by Enapa Ventures, which was issued with a report, but never underwent testing.
A committee was constituted to investigate the matter, which was chaired by Rev. Dr.Oddoye, the then Deputy Executive Director of CRIG.
It was discovered by the committee that in 2013, no samples of Cocoa Nti fertilizer was submitted for testing, as Dr Alfred Arthur claimed.
Furthermore, there was no evidence on record that officials of Enapa Ventures, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) and OCP (Morocco) visited CRIG with a proposal to submit a fertiliser sample for testing.
Rev. Dr.Oddoye was on record to have stated that although Dr. Arthur was invited to Morocco by OCP and Enapa Ventures in 2013, there was no official record that COCOBOD requested CRIG to test Cocoa Nti, a granular fertiliser.
Upon the Committee’s recommendations, Dr Alfred Arthur was suspended and subsequently transferred to Bonsu substation.
At the end of the day, there is no evidence that OCP and Enapa ventures had been punished.
In respect of this fact, Dr. Arthur was called back to CRIG in 2017.
Similarly, others on pension, such as Dr. F.M. Amoah and Dr Adu-Ampomah were equally invited back to occupy the positions of Executive Director of CRIG and Deputy Chief Executive Agronomy and Qualify Control (A&QC) respectively.
The court, presided over by Justice AboagyeTandoh was told that these three were used as key prosecution witnesses in the suit of the Republic versus Stephen KwabenaOpuni (A1), Seidu Agongo (A2) and Agricult Ghana Limited (A3).
For the purchase and supply of lithovit fertilizer, the three have been charged for wilfully causing financial loss to the state to the tune GH¢217,370,289.22 to the Republic, defrauding by false pretense, contravention of Public Procurement Act, Money laundering and corruption by public officer.
Dr Opuni and Seidu, owner of Agricult Ghana Limited, pleaded not guilty to all the charges and were admitted to a bail of GH¢300,000 each.
Evidence of the three prosecution witnesses
Dr. F. M. Amoah (PW1) stated that Dr.Opuni side-stepped the testing procedures governing the testing of new chemicals before applying them on cocoa crops.
According to him, it takes a minimum of two years or average of three years to test newly introduced fertiliser, but Dr.Opuni, soon upon assumption of office ordered that, this rule was compromised to make fertiliser reliable and affordable to farmers.
PW1 said almost all Scientists at CRIG disagreed with Dr Opuni’s stance, but he insisted.
Dr Alfred Arthur, on the other hand, testified that he tested the Lithovit Foliar Fertiliser, which was a powdery substance and not liquid, as the court is being made to believe.
Dr. Yaw Adu-Ampomah also said COCOBOD under the leadership of Dr.Opuni purchased 700,000 litres of the liquid Fertiliser at the cost of $19,250,000 although the product was not tested.
Also, the letter signed by Dr.Opuni to purchase the liquid fertilizer was different from the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) submitted by Agricult Ghana Ltd for the testing of the product.
Cross examination
Q: You have in your hands Exhibit H. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: l opened page 41 for you but turn to page 39 first, that is Dr. Yaw AduAmpomah’s committee’s recordings of evidence of Dr. F. M. Amoah?
A: That is correct.
Q: It continued through page 41. That is correct?
A: Yes. That is correct.
He was asked: “this letter accompanying the report says that lithovit was tested on matured cocoa when in fact it had not, the report shows it was tested on seedlings”. Is that question there?
A: Yes, the question is there.
Q. Please read his answer to this Court?
A: The answer reads “To be honest with you this might have passed my blind side. I will never condone such a thing. When I was asked to write that it was good, I said I will not do it.”
Q. Let’s go the very last question on that page. He was asked by the committee “so it seems you initially succumbed to Dr.Opuni’s pressure?
A. Yes. That is correct.
Q. And please read for this Court what his answer was?
A. His answer was “No I did not succumb to his pressure. The lithovit did not come during Dr.Opuni’s time, it came before became. And so did metacide.”
Q. When Dr. Amoah told the Dr. Yaw AduAmpomah Committee that lithovit did not come during Dr.Opuni’s time, it came before he came. What do you understand that to mean?
A: What it means is that lithovit came when Dr.Opuni was not around.
Q.Where did Dr.Opuni go that he was not around?
A. What I meant is Dr.Opuni had not been appointed then.
Q. Indeed, this agrees with your evidence. You were appointed on 4th November 2013. That is correct?
A. That is true.
Q. You were employed before Dr.Opuni was appointed as Cocobod?
A: That is correct.
Q: It is your evidence that the testing on seedling had been completed before you were employed.
A: Yes.
Q: That is the position that had been confirmed by Dr. Amoah to the Dr. Yaw AduAmpomah Committee?
A: Yes.
Q: Look at Exhibit 17 series. Look at Exhibit 17(c). Have you seen it?
A: Yes.
Q: What is Exhibit 17(c)?
A. It is a letter signed by Dr. Francis Kofi Oppong on the subject “reminder submission of final report on the testing of Cocoa Nti fertilizer”.
Q: Please tell this Court very briefly what the story about Cocoa Nti fertiliser is?
A: Cocoa Nti fertiliser is a granular fertiliser that was tested at CRIG.
Q. This Cocoa Nti fertiliser that you said Exhibit 17(c) was a reminder to, do you know what the reminder is about?
A: It was on the submission of final report on the testing of Cocoa Nti fertilizer.
Q: Turn to D, that is the response of Dr AnimKwapong to C, is that not it?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q. And before responding, did CRIG do anything in respect of investigating the report?
A: I recall there was an investigation at CRIG.
Q: This investigation, who chaired it?
A: This was the Deputy Executive Director at CRIG. And his name is? Rev. Dr.Oddoye.
Q: Your name appeared on the report as having participated in the testing of the product. Is that correct?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: What did the committee find in respect of your participation in the testing?
A: The committee’s report did not come to my attention so I cannot tell what exactly they found.
Q: You did not participate is the testing of that product. Is that true?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: When you go to Exhibit 17D, adverse findings were made against Dr. Alfred Arthur (PW2) by that committee. Is that correct?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: That again confirms something, which is that when the reports are generated, the names of all the soil scientists are put on the report?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: That again confirms something which is that when the reports are generated the names of all the soil scientists are put on the report?
A: That is correct.
Q: It is true that in the Cocoa Nti case, the committee found as a fact and that is in paragraph 1 of Exhibit 17D that no samples were brought to CRIG in 2013 as Dr. Alfred Arthur claimed. That is correct?
A: That is not correct. It is rather in paragraph 4.
Q: What is in paragraph 4?
A: “There is no evidence or record that a delegation from OCP (Morocco, MOFA and ENAPA ventures) paid an official visit to CRIG in 2013 with a proposal to submit a Fertiliser sample for testing on cocoa.
Q: What you have just read is paragraph 4 of the letter and specifically the finding 1 of the committee, which the then Director of CRIG, Dr.AnimKwapong forwarded to the Deputy Chief Executive Agronomy and Quality Control?
A: That is correct.
Q: In finding 2 of that committee, it was specific that “although Dr Alfred Arthur visited Morocco at the invitation of OCP and ENAPA Ventures in 2013, there is no evidence that Cocobod officially requested CRIG to test the fertilizer with the formulation…” Is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Do you know whether or not Cocoa Nei fertilizer, ENAPA Ventures and or OCP have been prosecuted for the report that Dr. Alfred Arthur prepared?
A: I do not know.
Q: For the years that you have been in CRIG, do you know any fertiliser company that has been prosecuted in Court for report that has been prepared from CRIG?
A: I do not know.
Q: It is because none has ever been?
A: I do not know.
Q: As a result of this investigation of the Rev. Dr.Oddoye’s committee, did anything happen to Dr. Alfred Arthur?
A: He was suspended.
Q: Was that all?
A: And transferred to Bunsu Sub-station.
Q. Did Dr. Alfred Arthur ever get back to CRIG, Tafo?
A: Yes.
Q; When was he transferred back to CRIG, Tafo.
A: The exact date I do not know.
Q: What year?
A: 2017.
Q: And in 2017, Dr. Yaw AduAmpomah had come back as the Deputy Chief Executive of Agronomy and Quality Control?
A: Yes.
Q: By the time you got to CRIG, Dr. Yaw AduAmpomah had retired from Cocobod. Is that correct?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: Dr. F.M. Amoah also retired from Cocobod in 2015. Is that correct?
A: I know he retired, but I do not know the exact date.
In 2017 these two gentlemen Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah and Dr. F.M. Amoah returned from retirement as Deputy Chief Executive, Agronomy and Quality Control and Executive Director, CRIG respectively?
A: That is correct.
Q: And then Dr. Alfred Arthur had his suspension and transfer to Bunsu lifted and transferred back to CRIG, Tafo.
A: Yes, he was transferred back to Tafo.
Q: And these are the three prosecution witnesses (PW1, PW2 and PW3) in this case of Republic v Stephen KwabenaOpuni& 2 Others.
A: Yes, I know.
Q: It is true that it is only these three “friends” who are complaining about lithovit not being liquid. Do you know?
A: I know of my colleague Dr. Alfred Arthur.
Q: For a trained Soil Scientist, CRIG Tafo is where you want to be and not any other sub-station?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: That is where you do research and publish papers?
A: That is not exactly correct because I have publications that the work was carried outside Tafo station. However, it is ideal to stay at the Tafo station because of the presence of the soil science laboratory.
Q: Briefly tell this Court how does the soil science laboratory enhance your career as a soil scientist?
A: The lab does the analysis of the soil for me to do the interpretation to communicate the finding to the scientific world in a form of publication.
Q: At the last date, you explained to this Court that you came to know that ‘when the report is generated they put the name to the soil scientist on it. Do you remember?
A: I do.
Q: Kindly explain to this Court “When you say generated, what do you mean?
A: What I meant was that data collected on a product are analysed to provide meaning to the data collected and reported as a document.
Q: Look at Exhibit B1 on the last page of the report? You have Exhibit B1 that is the report, which was submitted to Cocobod. That is true?
A: Yes.
Q: The inference of the authors is clearly captured on the page of the report?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: They were also very clear that they matched the nutrition of the earlier nutrition tested?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: It is based on that paragraph 3, the first line they indicated “Lithovit foliar fertiliser could be applied on matured cocoa.”
A: Yes.
Q: Throughout the report, Exhibit B, the authors never represented that they tested lithovit on matured trees?
A: They did not.
Q: They said they were making an inference based on earlier test done on similar foliar fertilisers. That is correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Indeed, they named Nutrismart and Vegemax foliar fertilisers as the benchmarks in terms of same nutrients. Is that correct?
A: Yes, That is correct.
Q: What document do you have in your hand?
A: A statement that I made to Ghana Police, CID Headquarters.
Q: What is the date on that statement?
A: 27th September 2017.
Q: What is the name of that statement?
A: Jerome AgbesiDogbatse.
Q: Turn to page 2 of the statement, is it signed?
A: Yes.
Q: Who signed it?
A: There are two signatures. One is mine.
Q: Did you make that statement freely on your own volition?
A: Yes.
Q: And you still stand by everything you said in that statement?
A: Yes, I do.
Lawyer Benson: My Lord, we want to tender the statement through the witness.
Counsel for the Republic: My Lord, we have no objection subject to replacing it with cleaner one.
Lawyer Codjoe: No objection, my Lord.
BY COURT: The statement of Jerome AgbesiDogbetse. DW3/A2 & A3 dated 27th September 2017 is tendered in evidence and same without objection is admitted as Exhibit 142/A2 and A3.
COUNSEL FOR 2” AND 3” ACCUSED: My Lord, there will be all for the witness.
Cross examination by counsel Samuel Codjoe
Q: When you received the query to appear before the Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah committee. Did you send a written response?
A: Yes, I did.
