Alex Asante Afrifa, Head of the Soil Science Division of the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG), in a statement to the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO) questioned the source of a lithovit foliar fertiliser tested by the Chemistry Department of University of Ghana and the Ghana Standard Authority (GSA).
According to him, the lithovit foliar fertiliser he led a team of scientists to analyze, did not have any adverse effects on cocoa seedlings and that they even advised its continuous application on cocoa trees.
He could not, therefore, come to terms with the test reports by the Chemistry Department of University of Ghana and GSA that the product was not a fertiliser, as he doesn’t know the source of the lithovit they tested.
Mr A.A. Afrifa challenged these test reports because the Soil Science Division established from their study that lithovit helped in getting the nutrients to the plant.
Mr A. A. Afrifa’s statement was referred to by Samuel Codjoe, counsel for Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni, during cross examination of Paul Agyei Gyang, a senior officer at EOCO on Monday.
Lawyer Codjoe found the statement of A.A. Afrifa relevant to Dr Opuni’s defence, due to the charge of procuring an adulterated fertiliser from Seidu Agongo and his company, Agricult Ghana Limited, suppliers of lithovit fertiliser for cocoa farmers.This singular act allegedlycaused the country to lose GH¢271.3 million.
Dr Opuni, a former Chief Executive of Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) together with Agongo and Agricult are facing 27 counts for allegedly engaging in illegalities.
It is known to the court that the source of the lithovit fertiliser that was tested by University of Ghana Chemistry Department and that of GSA was supplied by Dr Yaw Adu Ampomah, complainant and a former Deputy Chief Executive of Agronomy and Qualify Control (A&QC) at COCOBOD.
A third test on the agro product, which the supplier was involved in the picking up of the sample and sent to the same GSA, this timeproved that the lithovit was a fertiliser.
Lawyer Codjoe at this point told the Land Division of the Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh that it has become obvious to EOCO that the sample, which was sent to University of Ghana and the one later given to GSA were not the same.
Paul Agyei Gyang who has been subpoenaed by Seidu Agongo to testify in his defence, said it will be difficult to tell, since one was brought by the complainant and the other was a result of both parties agreeing on which sample to test.
Counsel added that Dr. Opuni in a letter to CRIG never instructed the scientist to issue any certificate for lithovit in January 2014 and the witness affirmed that saying the letter did not state so.
However, the prosecution led by the Chief State Attorney (CSA), Evelyn Keelson told the court that the fertiliser, which A.A Afrifa submitted a report on to COCOBOD is none other than lithovit folia fertiliser, a fine powder.
She also stated that since EOCO did not conclude its investigations into this case, the witness could not establish the complaint made by COCOBOD to his outfit.
Cross examination
Q: He was also the lead author on the lithovit?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: Mr Gyang, you will remember in the course of your investigation, you came across one A. A. Afrifa who was the Head of Soil Science Division at CRIG?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: This statement of the 5th April was a witness statement taken from A. A. Afrifa?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: In fact, you took a lot of statements from the said A. A. Afrifa in the investigation concerning this matter?
A; That is so my lord.
Q: Can you take a look at a statement dated 5th April 2017, and confirm to this court that this is a statement, which was taken from A. A, Afrifa by EOCO?
A: Yes my lord, we took the statement from A.A. Afrifa
Q: This statement of the 5th April 2017, was a witness statement taken from A.A Afrifa?
A: Yes my lord that is so.
Counsel: I want to tender this document
Court: Any objection?
Prosecution: We have no objection
Counsel for A2&A3: We have no objection
Court: Document tendered through the witness and same is admitted and marked as Exhibit136/ A1.
Q: In fact, he mentioned in his statement that in the case of Sidalco, it a longer time of between 6 to… years to test. Is that not so?
A: Yes my lord he said so
Q: Can you also confirm that this was important because the complainant Adu Ampomah had stated in his numerous statements to EOCO that the minimum period for testing fertilisers is 3 years?
A: Yes my lord
Q: In his statement, can you confirm that he states that he has tested about 17 different types of fertilisers in the course of his employment at CRIG?
A: Yes my lord, he said so
Q: And he also said he didn’t have a fixed duration for testing fertilisers?
A: Yes my lord, he said so.
Q: He also mentioned that ‘Asaase wura’ and cocoa feed, it took three to four years?
A: It is so my lord
Q: And he gave an example in his statement and he said he compared the fertiliser literary to an aeroplane and a car as means for travelling. And according to him, lithovit was an aeroplane as compared to the other fertilisers being a car.
A: He said so my lord.
Q: And he mentioned that in the case of another product crop…testing took 5 to 6 years?
Ans: That is true my lord.
Q: And in fact, he mentioned that the reason why lithovit was special is ” lithovit used current and sophisticated approach in getting the nutrients to the plant.” Isn’t it?
A: It is so my lord.
Q: In this statement, he was very clear, convinced or lured in coming out with approval of lithovit for use on matured cocoa?
A: It is so my lord.
Q: Sir, can you confirm that he is very explicit that he would advise for the continuation of lithovit application on cocoa?
A: He said so my lord
Q: And in this statement, he, A.A Afrifa, stated that after the analysis and photoxity test, the lithovit did not have any adverse effects on cocoa seedlings of about two months. Isn’t that so?
A: He said so my lord
Q: But can you also remember that one of the accusations was this contained in Adu Ampomah statements to EOCO that lithovit was not good a fertiliser?
A: Yes my lord
Q: And the complaint was that first accused influenced the scientists in the test?
A: I can remember exactly.
Q: And these statements are totally different from that of Adu Ampomah who did not test the fertiliser and was not involved with the fertiliser in anyway about lithovit suitability?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: And your investigation revealed that Mr A. A. Afrifa was the Head of the Soil Science Division and they did the test?
A: It so my lord.
Q: You also took another witness statement from Mr Afrifa on the 12th of June 2017. Can you have a look at this statement and confirm whether this was the second statement taken from A.A. AFrifa?
A: It is so my lord.
Q: In this statement, Exhibit 137/A1, he states that lithovit foliar fertiliser is good for cocoa from the report submitted on it to COCOBOD. Is that not so?
A: It is so my lord.
Counsel for A1: My lord we want to tender this second statement of Mr. Alex Asante Afrifa (A. A Afrifa)
Court: Any objection?
Prosecution: My lord we have no objection
Counsel for A2&A3: My lord no objection
Court: The second witness statement of A.A. Afrifa dated 12th June 2017 is tendered through the witness DW1/A2&A3 without objection from both prosecution and counsel A2 and A3, and same is admitted and marked Exhibit 136/A1?
Q: You confronted him with the two test you have conducted?
A: That is so my lord.
Q: Can you confirm that as at the time he gave the statements, you have conducted two laboratory test on lithovit namely, one at GSA and one at the chemistry department of university of Ghana, which stated that lithovit wasn’t a good fertiliser?
A: That is so my lord.
Q: And he also stated that there was no decrease in cocoa Production as a result of the application of litovit folia fertiliser?
A: that is so my lord
Q: His first objection was that he doesn’t know the source of the lithovit, which was tested. Is that not so?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: And he challenged the results of these two test .is that not so?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: So you would agree that at this point, when you had these two reports, the Head of Soil Science Division, CRIG at COCOBOD who conducted the test challenged these two reports on the efficacy of lithovit fertiliser. Is that not so?
A: It is so my lord.
Q: Then he also challenged the method and procedures used in the test as he said these were unknown to him?
A: he said so my lord
Q: so that based on this objection with respect to the two results test, EOCO conducted a third test on litovit at the Ghana standards Authority, is that not so?
A: it is so my lord
Q: but you can confirm that at the time of giving this statement, Mr A.A Afrifa was still in the employment of CRIG and for that matter cocoa board.
A: it is so my lord
Q: if you can Also remember, the supplier of the fertiliser, which is Agricult also challenged these two findings on the fact that litovit was not a proper fertiliser. Is that not so?
A: It is so my lord.
Q: And this sample was picked from COCOBOD’s own warehouse?
A: That is so my lord.
Q: At that point, it would have become obvious to EOCO that the sample, which was sent to University of Ghana and the one which was earlier taken to GSA were not the same?
A: My lord, it will be difficult to tell. One was brought by the receiver, that is the complainant and the other was brought as a result of both parties agreeing on which sample to test.
Q: With regards to this third test, the supplier A3 was involved in the picking of sample that was sent to GSA for testing. Is that nor so?
A: Yes my lord, he was involved in the selection of the sample.
Q: If you can please confirm that the one which failed the test at the two places i.e., the Chemistry Department and GSA were brought by Dr Adu Ampomah to EOCO alone for testing?
A: I have said so.
Q: When you said in your answer that both parties agreed on the selection, what happened basically is that both parties went to the warehouse where this lithovit sample was stored?
A: that is so My lord.
Q: And in fact he concluded his statement by saying that “I still stand on the fact that lithovit foliar is good for cocoa production. Is that not so?
A : He said so my lord.
Q: And in this statement he stated that no farmers to his knowledge had complained about any ill performance about litovit liquid fertiliser?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: And you also became aware that the mode of instruction with respect to official act just as any other corporate organisation were all documented?
A: My lord, I did not delve into the corporate structure of COCOBOD, but it is presumed that as a public structure, orders were followed as counsel is saying.
Q: In fact, as at the time you handed over your investigations, there was no adverse report from COCOBOD apart from these two reports from GSA and University of Ghana, which doubted the efficacy of lithovit as a fertiliser for use on matured cocoa?
A: It is true my lord.
Q: during your investigation, first accused always insisted and maintained that he did not in any way interfere with the testing of lithovit?
A: Yes my lord, he did.
Q: And in your investigation, if you can remember, it became obvious and/or you find as a fact that COCOBOD and its divisions were well organised corporate structure?
A: Yes my lord it is so.
Q: Then you now have the same letter now with the minutes of CRIG, which was signed by Dr Adu Acheampong who was official of CRIG who was one of the people who minuted on the letter, Exhibit 131?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: Give him Exhibits C and 13.You have in your hands a letter dated 21st January 2014. It was first tendered as Exhibit C by PW1 without any minutes on the letter. Is that not so?
A: Yes my lord it is.
Q: And that these two reports, which doubted the efficacy of lithovit as a fertiliser were later debunked by the third test finding on lithovit, which stated that it was a fertiliser?
A: My lord, I wouldn’t say they were debunked but it was a different results on its own for prosecution to decide on it.
Q: Can you confirm that in that letter, first accused only approved a recommendation by CRIG, the scientific division of COCOBOD. Is that not so?
A: My lord, it is stated in the letter that management had approved….
Q: So in this letter, it is obvious to the whole world that first accused on his own did not make an independent recommendation but approved the recommendation made by CRIG on litovit?
A: It is so my lord.
Q: This is a letter brought to A3 concerning lithovit. And in this letter first accused, informed A3 that management had approved the recommendation from CRIG on the product. In your investigation, up to the time you handed over, did you have a copy of Exhibit 131, thus the CRIG copy with the minutes on it?
A: My lord, I don’t think we had the minutes.
Q: In fact in this letter, first accused informed the company Agricult that they may contactCRIG for any other information and or assistance.
A: it is so my lord.
Q: In this letter, first accused never instructed CRIG to issue any certificate for lithovit in January 2014?
A: Yes my lord, this letter does not state so.
Q: can you have a look at Exhibit D, which is the first certificate issued by PW1, Dr Franklin Amoah on 22nd January 2014, in respect of lithovit and confirm that this certificate came to the knowledge of EOCO during the investigation?
A: My lord, we came across many documents so I cannot be too sure.
Q: Can you confirm that the certificate i.e. Exhibit D was signed by PW1 on 22nd January 2014, before the receipt of the letter Exhibit 131 at CRIG?
A: Yes my lord, the certificate was signed on 22nd January 2014, whereas the letter authorising the certificate was received in 29th January 2014.
Q: on the Exhibit 131, can you confirm the date CRIG received the signed letter, first accused and copied to CRIG?
A: My lord the letter was sent on the 21st January 2014 and received at CRIG on 29th January 2014.
Q: So it is true that before CRIG received this COCOBOD letter, PW1, Franklin Amoah had signed Exhibit D on the 22nd January 2014. That is just the next day?
A: That is so my lord.
Q: Can you confirm that when this letter was received by CRIG, PW1 Franklin Amoah first minuted the letter to the chairman of the CTCM, Mr Akrofi on 29th January 2014?
A. Yes my lord it is so.
Counsel for A1: My lord, that will be all for the witness.
Cross examination by prosecution
Q: So that as at the time the CTCM ,which according both PW3, Dr. Adu Ampomah and PW1 Dr. Franklin Amoah is the body to recommend the issuance of a certificate for fertiliser and in this case lithovit, Dr Franklin Amoah had already signed and issued the certificate, Exhibit D?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: The fertiliser Mr. Afrifa is talking about is not the same as lithovit liquid fertiliser isn’t it?
A: He said lithovit folia fertiliser is good for cocoa per report submitted on it.
Q: So from what you read from exhibit 137 Mr Afrifa stated that he sent a report on litovit folia fertiliser to cocoa board. Is that not so?
A: It is so my lord.
Q: So Mr. Gyan, do you have exhibit 137. Please read from line 4 to line 6 on page one?
A: “I wish to say that the lithovit foliar fertiliser is good for cocoa per the reports submitted on it.”
Q: I am putting it to you that the report Mr Afrifa is talking about is exhibit B1?
A: Yes my lord, Exhibit 137 is a statement and Exhibit B1 is the report.
Q: Turn to Exhibit B1 and read to the hearing of this court?
A: lithovit foliar fertiliser is a very fine powder…
Q: You will agree with me that the fertiliser which A.A Afrifa submitted a report on to COCOBOD is none other than lithovit folia fertiliser, which is a fine powder?
A: My lord, that is what is captured in the report.
Q: So please you have Exhibit 135, it is a statement from AduAmpomah, read it?
A: During the review period, it was found that a liquid fertiliser lithovit had not been subjected to scientific testing.
Q: So I am putting it to you that from Exhibit 131 and Exhibit C, A1 was informing A2 and A3 and the whole world, as stated by counsel, that lithovit foliar fertiliser as evident by Exhibit B1 was what the management of cocoa board approved?
A: That is what the letter says.
Q: Mr Gyang, as Head of the organised crime of EOCO was not personally involved in the investigation of A1, A2 and A3?
A: Yes, you are right
Q. Mr. Paul Gyang, you do not remember a lot of things that happened in the course of the EOCO’s investigations into the case as you sit here?
A. Yes my Lord it has been some time
Q. This is also because EOCO did not conclude the investigations into this case, is that not so?
A. Yes my Lord, we did not conclude investigations into this case
Q. And because you did not conclude investigations into this case, you could not establish the complaint made by COCOBOD to your outfit?
A. That is so my Lord
Q. In fact by April 2017, from your diary of action, you had received information that the police CID were to take over the investigations?
A. My Lord, I can’t really remember the date, but we had the directive to hand over the dockets.
Case adjourned to Monday, 11 March 2024.
