Reverend Father Dr Emmanuel Kofi Okpoti Oddoye, a witness in the ongoing GH¢271.3 million cocoa trial, says it is normal for laboratory tests to have varied results from the stated formulation of a product.
He said in laboratory testing, deviation to certain limit is permissible, due to human error and laboratory equipment.
The witness said in scientific research, the possibility of not achieving 100 per cent (%) result as stated on a product submitted for testing is high, stressing “normally in science, we give figures and it is in a range, plus or minus.”
Rev. Fr. Dr. Oddoye was led to make this statement by Benson Nutsukpui, counsel for Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited, 2nd and 3rd Accused (A&A3) respectively in the trial.
This piece of evidence is relevant to A2 and A3 case, for the prosecution is holding it against them that the active ingredients listed on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of Lithovit fertiliser that was supplied to the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) does not correspond to the laboratory test results of the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana and Ghana Standard Authority (GSA).
The witness confirmed that agro-chemicals such as Ammonium Sulphate from Plantco Ltd. and Omni Cocoa Aduane granular fertiliser submitted by Omnifert, never went through field trials, but laboratory test and verification.
He added that the likes of Cocoa Nti fertiliser, was not properly introduced to the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG). No payment was also made for the trials.
Counsel Benson Nutsukpui told the Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, last week Wednesday, that despite all these, none of these companies or officers incharge had been put before the court to stand trial.
Justice Aboagye Tandoh also heard that Dr. Alfred Arthur, a soil scientist at Cocoa Research Institute (CRIG) and 2nd prosecution Witness (PW2) in the trial, solely authored the report on Cocoa Nti fertiliser.
It was established by an adhoc disciplinary committee chaired by Rev. Fr. Dr.Oddeyo, that Dr Arthur received the fertiliser sample from Enapa Ventures in his own personal capacity without the involvement of COCOBOD and CRIG that he is working for.
According to him, Dr Arthur claimed the rule never existed until the year 2014 that a decision was taken that all requests for testing of chemicals must emanate from COCOBOD.
This act, on the part of Dr Arthur, had been described by the adhoc committee as improper and dishonest, particularly for scientists to receive and test products at the blind side of the Committee on Testing Chemicals and Machines (CTCM).
Mr Nutsukpui stated that laboratory test and verification reports of Ammonium sulphate and Omni Cocoa Aduane Granular fertiliser were variously received by Deputy Chief Executive of COCOBOD, Agronomy and Qualify Control (A&QC), Dr Yaw Adu-Ampomah in the year 2017.
Cross-examination
Q: Yesterday, whiles we were looking at Exhibit 42, you stated that some fertilizers, the ones with ammonium sulphate i.e. those that have urea and are nitrogenous have been researched at CRIG. Is that the case?
A: Yes.
Q: And you said for some of those ones the understanding is that they are fertilizers when they have those nutrients. Is that the case?
A: Yes.
Q: Look at Exhibit 42. Turn to page 2 under the heading; Introduction. Have you seen it?
A: Yes
Q: After introducing the ammonium sulphate as “one of the commonly used inorganic sources of nitrogen fertilizer,” it stated what was done which is laboratory tests were conducted on the sample?
A: Yes.
Q: Under the test conducted, is stated clearly that “determination of pH total nitrogen, ammonium and sulphate ions and ammonium gas were conducted on the sample using standard laboratory procedure”. Is that also there?
A: Yes
Q: And when you go to page 3, under conclusion, the second sentence “the presence of ammonium and sulphate ions and ammonia gas were also characteristic of ammonium sulphate. Then he concluded. This laboratory test can therefore confirm that the fertilizer sample is of ammonium sulphate material. Is that there?
A: Yes.
Q: What does that conclusion mean?
A: It means that it is fertilizer specifically ammonium sulphate.
Q: And it is that report to which you did your memo to your Executive Director. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Yesterday when you looked at Exhibit 42, CRIG forwarded the report to COCOBOD. Did they?
A: Yes.
№Q: Yesterday you told this Court that you and your Executive Director discussed it and to cover yourselves you added the 1st page of Exhibit 42. Did you say that?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Just briefly, explain what you mean by that to this Court.
A: The letter submitting the ammonium sulphate from Plantco Ltd had suggested a seedling trial. It was however the opinion of the scientists and myself as well that having established the material as ammonium sulphate, there was no need to go further.
Q: Was there anything wrong with that opinion, which you and the scientists expressed?
A: There was nothing wrong.
Q: Let’s go to Exhibit 41. It starts with a letter titled submission of a report dated 19th May, 2017 and addressed to the Deputy Chief Executive of Cocobod?
A: That is correct.
Q: It is signed by you?
A: That is correct.
Q: It forwards a report on laboratory verification of Omni Cocoa Aduane. Is that correct?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: Please look at the very first paragraph of the laboratory report attached to Exhibit 42, it says “a sample of Omni Cocoa Aduane granular fertilizer was submitted by Omnifert ltd to the CRIG on 16th Febraury, 2017 for laboratory verification of nutrients content”. Is it there?
A: Yes.
Q: What does that mean in relation to when it was submitted?
A: It means that the sample was brought to CRIG on 16th February, 2017.
Q: As at 16th February, 2017, who was the Deputy Chief Executive, Agronomy and Quality Control?
A: It was then Dr. Yaw AduAmpomah.
Q: Go to the last four lines of that Executive summary. It says “the deviations (above or below) of the laboratory test result from the specified content could be attributable to laboratory, equipment and human error”. Have you seen that?
A: Yes I have.
Q: What may that statement above mean?
A: The statement is explaining that the results from the laboratory test were not exactly as stated on the formulation but that the deviations are within normal limits.
Q: Would that be what is normally referred to as within acceptable margin of error?
A: That is so. Normally in science we give figures and it is in a range, plus or minus.
Q: The scientists reached a conclusion “The nutrient content of the fertilizer sample is therefore duly verified by the laboratory results as Omni Ghana Aduane and good for use on matured cocoa”. Is there?
A: Yes.
Q: What may that mean?
A: It means that the sample has been verified as Omni Cocoa Aduane and can be used on matured cocoa.
Q: Page one of the scientific report. The Soil Scientists who prepared this scientific report are A. K. Quaye, A. Arthur and A.J Dogbatse. Those were the Scientists that prepared the report?
A: That is correct.
Q: Let’s go to page 2. The method of analysis is the heading after introduction?
A: That is correct.
Q: And it was very clear that “approximately, 13.214g of sample was weighed into a beaker and dissolved in distilled water. That was the product used for the test. That is correct?
A: Yes it was a sub sample of the sample.
Q: What I want to find out is more in terms of the quantity that was used?
A: According to the report, that is the quantity.
Q: Take a minute. Gently but thoroughly go through the report, the other paragraphs of the scientific reports and see if any other quantity of the product is stated as having been used in the testing?
A: An additional 0.2g was used for nitrogen analysis and a further 2.5g for mineral contents. What they took for mineral content was used for phosphorus for magnesium and potassium.
Q: Please go to page 3. The result of this testing is stated in page 3. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And it is very clearly stated in Exhibit 41 that it was purely laboratory test that was conducted. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: What was the conclusion reached by the scientists on page 4 on Exhibit 41?
A: The conclusion is that the material tested was Omni Cocoa Aduane fertiliser and good for matured cocoa.
Q: Indeed the very last sentence of the report states “the content of the fertilizer sample is therefore duly verified by the laboratory test as Omni Cocoa Aduane and good for use on matured cocoa”. That is correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Your letter forwarding the report was on 19th May, 2017. I that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: At most three months after the submission of the sample?
A: That is correct.
Q: Do you know when A. K. Quaye joined Soil Science Division, CRIG?
A: The exact date, I am not sure?
Q: Around the time. If you know?
A: I am not sure.
Q: Jerome AgbesiDogbatse told this Court that in 2013 November when he joined CRIG, there were only two other Soil scientists; A. A. Afrifa and A. Arthur at the Soil Science Division. Would that be correct?
A: CRIG employs scientists from time to time. I cannot disputes Mr. Dogbatse’s claim since he was there and I know of Dr. A.K. Quaye but I am not certain as to when he joined.
Q: So the eventual conclusion on the very last page of Exhibit 41 very last line “Omni does not require field test but rather laboratory verification.”
A: That is so.
Q: Go to the last page of the report, Exhibit 41. The publications that were referred to, the first one was in 2011. Have you seen it?
A: I have noted it.
Q: Who are the authors of that report?
A: The authors are Francis Baah, Vincent Anchirinah and Frederick Amon-Armah.
Q: Their publication was said to be in 2011. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you have another article; an assessment of inherent chemical of soil for balanced fertilizer recommendation for cocoa in Ghana. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystem volume 1. That was supposed to be published in 2016. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: And the third one is the volume 2 under the same heading?
A: The title of volume 2 is slightly different but it is the same study.
Q: And it is the case that it is based on these three publications that the inference was drawn by the scientists in their reports?
A: No. apparently a study has gone on between CRIG, IFDC and MOFA. It was not well documented so when DCE, Agronomy and Quality Control wrote to CRIG initially we said we did not know so in proof that some field trial had actually taken place involving the said fertilizer, the head of the Soil Science Division forwarded the last page to me.
Q: And the head of the Soil Science Division forwarded the last page to you?
A: Yes.
Q: And referred to those publications?
A: Yes.
Q: What they were supposed to have done it is in the last sentence of the first paragraph. What is stated there “additionally, IDF and CRIG conducted inherent soil fertility characterization through the cocoa zone of Ghana and initiated field test of site specific fertilizers formulated on basis of chemical characteristics of major soil groups encountered in the cocoa zones of Ghana (2009-2012).
A: Yes.
Q: The authors of the report felt satisfied based on those publications to give you the report Exhibit 41 That is true?
A: That is true.
Q: In the case of Exhibit 42, did the authors go back to the field in 2017 when the Omnifert ltd brought their Ombi Aduane fertilizer.
A: They did not go back to the field.
Q: While you were the head of the CTCM testing fertilizers, tell us about field trials in respect of fertilizers that were tested at the time. Did the scientists do a field test for every fertilizer that was brought to CTCM?
A: No.
Q: Have a look at Exhibit 18. It is the letter forwarding the report of the adhoc disciplinary committee to the Deputy Chief Executive, Agronomy and Quality Control. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: It is dated 6th November, 2016. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: And it is signed by the then Executive Director Dr. Gilbert Anim Kwapong?
A: That is correct.
Q: There is a minute on it. “E D-CRIG handle expeditiously as discussed. Whose memo is that?
A: The minutes is from the then DCE, Agronomy and Quality Control, Dr. Francis Oppong.
Q: If you turn to the very first page of Exhibit 18, it is stated there that this committee investigated the scientific report that was prepared by some scientists of the Soil Science Division on Cocoa Nti Fertilizer by Enapa Ventures. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Go to paragraph 2 under the conduct of authors. It states “as such, to produce a report in six months for Cocoa Nti because the authors believe it was the same unnamed fertilizer formulation introduced to them in 2013 without the knowledge of Cocobod and CRIG, it is improper and dishonest”. Is it there?
A: Yes it is stated as such.
Q: Briefly explain to this Court what the belief of the authors was?
A: Their belief was that the sample given to them in 2013 and the sample being submitted in 2016 as Cocoa Nti were one and the same.
Q: What did your committee find in respect of the supposed sample given to them in 2013?
A: Basically we found that the sample was not properly introduced to CRIG neither had any payments been made for trials.
Q: When you say it was not properly introduced, put it in layman’s terms. How was the sample supposed to have gotten to CRIG?
A: The sample should have come through DCE Agronomy and Quality Control through Cocobod to CRIG.
Q: And it did not come through DCE Agronomy and Quality Control?
A: No. it did not.
Q: So your committee’s very first recommendation was that the scientists would need to be reminded and can only be given chemicals and machines for testing by the chairman of the CTCM backed by the proper documentation. That was your recommendation?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: And you put in capital letters that on no account should scientists receive chemicals or machines for testing for other sources?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: Go to page 17 of your report Exhibit 18 specifically your committee’s questioning Dr. Alfred Arthur. Have you found it?
A: Yes I have.
Q: Your committee asked him if it was true the samples which were delivered came without a name?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: Go to the next page. Page 18. The committee asked him how did you receive the samples? Was there any record of the transaction? And he said I received them and they were 30 bags in all. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: You asked him, were you aware that samples were to be channelled through COCOBOD per Exhibit 18? What was the answer to that question?
A: His answer was “when I joined CRIG, I saw samples coming directly to CRIG without recourse to COCOBOD. It was later in 2014 that at a seminar held at the club house. The decision was taken that all requests for testing of chemicals must emanate from COCOBOD.”
Q: That was the issue your committee sought to address in your finding?
A: Yes. It was one of the issues.
Q: Tell this Court. With regard to scientists taking samples from companies, how did that come to the fore in your committee’s deliberations?
A: The issue we were investigating was a case in point but it appeared there had been similar cases where even if the chemical or machine was directed to CRIG from COCOBOD, it was received by a scientist and not the chairman of CTCM.
Q: The issue of scientists taking samples directly from the companies was an issue in CRIG. Is that the case?
A: That was the case but my understanding is that nobody seemed to be bothered.
Q: So is it the case that there was the issue of the samples for testing of the products being received directly by scientists and that was an issue at CRIG. Is that the case?
A: Yes that was the case.
Q: There is this one that the Cocoa Nti fertilizer that the sample did not come through Cocobod, that is one issue. Was that what your committee investigated?
A: Yes. It formed part of the investigations.
Q: And the second was what you just said in Court that even when the products are introduced by COCOBOD and samples are required the scientists still receive the sample directly from the companies and that is also an issue at CRIG?
A: Yes.
Q: And that indeed is what your committee sought to deal with in its recommendation “on no account should scientists receive chemicals and machines from other sources.”
A: Yes.
Q: Go to page 6 of your recommendations. What is your recommendation 4?
A: “The committee recommends a standard operating procedure for receiving chemicals and machines through Cocobod for testing. This document should be prepared by the CTCM and submitted to CRIG management for approval. This will then become a working document to be used by the CTCM in all their work.”
Q: So this was your committee’s recommendation in 2016?
A: Yes.
Q: And it was aimed at dealing with the issues of receiving fertilizers for testing through unapproved sources?
A: That is so.
Q: What was your committee’s recommendation 6?
A: “Authors of reports to the chairman of the CTCM should all append their signatures to the report for the records of the CTCM. Subsequent reports emanating from the institutes to COCOBOD would have the names removed.”
Q: This was necessitated by the fact that the committee found that Dr. Arthur wrote the report alone. Is that the case?
A: I believe that is the case. Dr. Arthur wrote the report alone.
Q: A. A. Afrifa whose name was on the report told your committee that he was not part of the work?
A: That is so.
