Dr Gilbert Anim Kwapong, a key defence witness in the GH¢271.3 million cocoa trial, says a report compiled by the Cocoa Health and Extension Division (CHED) of Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) cannot be the basis for Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana(CRIG) to renew agro-chemical certificate.
According to the witness, CRIG has its own internal mechanisms for gathering data on chemical products for cocoa, before it approves same.
However, he stated that CHED’s report, which is born out of interactions with farmers and farmer agents, corroborates or is in addition to CRIG findings.
As a former Executive Director of CRIG, Dr Kwapong told the Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, last week’ Thursday that although CRIG is mandated to conduct its own research, CHED report is a COCOBOD official document.
He explained that while CRIG deals with chemical testing and issuing of certificates to suppliers, CHED is the interface with farmers and COCOBOD, therefore, the Board depends on CHED reports to take critical decisions.
Testifying on behalf of Dr. Stephen Kwabena Opuni, former Chief Executive (EC) of COCOBOD, and responding to questions from Benson Nutskpui, Counsel for Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited, the witness said under his management, CRIG went through the full process before it renewed a certificate.
During his tenure, Dr.Kwapong signed two certificatesforLithovit, which was supplied by Agricult Ghana Limited, in the year 2015 and 2016.
Nevertheless, the 2015 Lithovit Certificate that was sent to Mr. Kwapong’s desk was an original certificate, while the 2016 certificate was for a renewal.
The court was told that it is not true that there was no evidence at CRIG that Lithovit was tested, adding that the Scientists went through the full rigours of testing, per the information made available by the Committee for Chemical Testing and Machines (CTCM) to approve the controversial fertiliser.
Stressing on the above statement, the witness informed the court that, “and also I have mentioned that I did exercise due diligence before signing any certificate that was brought tomy desk.”
Furthermore, the witness said it is not true that Lithovit was not known at CRIG as a liquid fertiliser.
Dr. Opuni, Mr. Agongo and his company, Agricult, have been sued for allegedly playing roles that led the country to lose GH¢271.3 million in a Lithovit fertiliser deal.
Meanwhile, the following is what transpired in court.
Questions and answers;
Q.Doctor, just by way of refresher. You told this court that before the renewal of certificates for fertilizers by CRIG when you were the executive director, the scientists do re-evaluation that is correct?
A. My Lord that is correct.
Q. On the 18th of October 2018, PW1, in the person of Dr. Amoah, told the court that only CRIG does surveys to collect opinion of farmers to assess performance of fertilizers for COCOBOD would that be correct?
A. My Lord, that is partly correct. Because when I was in CHED, our annual report like CODAPEC HITECH contains some information on farmers’ reaction and the use of agrochemicals.
Q. So it is true that CHED in the course of its duties also report on its interaction with farmers, extension officers etc?
A. My Lord that is also correct.
Q. On the 18th October, 2018, Dr Amoah made this statement “My Lord CHED is an extension wing of COCOBOD and their main function is to implement their recommendations, research findings from CRIG and not to conduct a survey for chemicals that has been supplied to farmers. My Lord, the surveys or interviews are done by CRIG staff.” Now Sir, one, is that correct?
A. My Lord, as I said previously, that is not the whole truth. My Lord, I will add that there was time when there was an anomis caterpillar.
There was an outbreak of this caterpillar on cocoa and the insecticide used to control the infestation did not work as expected so it was the CHED staff who made a complaint for the insecticide to be changed. My lord, I also have a body called CRETEC, Cocoa Research Technical Committee.
Q. And this committee is chaired by the Executive Director of CHED?
A. That is correct. It is a joint committee of Researchers and Extension officers, and it is to facilitate the bilateral flow of information from extension to research and research to extension.
Q. Who undertakes the research?
A. My Lord, for crop protection and production research, CRIG has that mandate.
Q. When you just said a joint committee to facilitate the bilateral flow of information. In layman’s terms it would be cooperation between CHED and CRIG?
A. My Lord, definitely.
Q. On the same day, in an answer to a question that “CHED has a report in respect of their interactions with farmers on the use of various chemicals as their official report, Dr. Amoah answered, it would be an official report if it is their mandate to carry out re-evaluation”. Sir, is it the case that there is that dichotomy of what officials CHED finds on the field and that CHED can’t report its finding, is that the case?
A. My Lord, how would CHED provide feedback to CRIG on issues that happened on the field in terms of recommendations made by CRIG. I want to say it this way, for example I’m a CHED staff I go to a field, I see a problem pertaining or relating to a CRIG recommendation, I record the problem, how do I report that problem to CRIG. I am trying to say that anytime there is a problem on the field, CHED has to report to CRIG.
Q. Is CHED bound to submit the report on their findings only to CRIG or their findings can be channeled to COCOBOD in CHED’s report?
A. My Lord, both channels are applicable.
Q. So Dr. Amoah’s statement, which I read to you that “it would only be an official report if that is the mandate,” cannot mean that the report of CHED based on the findings of their extension officers, farmers and farm agents cannot be an official report of COCOBOD because the mandate of CHED is not to re-evaluate for recertification, that cannot be what he meant. In other term what he said cannot be true?
A. My Lord, a CHED report cannot be a basis for renewing certificate because CRIG has its own mechanism of going to field to collect data through surveys and other means, and this can be corroborated or added on to by report from CHED.
Q. When you were at CHED, CHED prepared reports, is that correct?
A. My Lord, yes.
Q. In those report, CHED brings out the findings of its extension officers and farmer’s agents on various agrochemicals, insecticides and other activities related to the farmers at the time being reported on, is that also correct?
A. My Lord that is correct.
Q. And when you were at CHED, a report is prepared and sent to COCOBOD is that correct?
A. My Lord that is correct.
Q. And COCOBOD is perfectly entitled to direct action based on those report from CHED?
A. My Lord, that is correct through CRETEC.
Q. And CRETEC is chaired by the Head of CHED?
A. My Lord that is correct.
Q. So that report from CHED are also official report of COCOBOD?
A. My Lord that is correct. I have to indicate that the Deputy Chief Executive in charge of agronomy and quality control sits in the meeting of CRETEC.
Q. Anybody who says the report of CHED cannot be an official report of COCOBOD cannot be telling the truth?
A. My Lord that is so.
Q. Dr. Amoah, in answering the question, confirmed that “CHED is the interface with farmers and COCOBOD”. Isthat correct?
A. My Lord that is correct
Q. And being the interface, it can only bring its findings on board through reports?
A. My Lord, that is correct.
Q. CODAPEC/HiTECH were under CHED,isthat correct?
A. My Lord that is correct
Q. And that did not change in 2014, 2015 and 2016?
A. My Lord, between 2014 and 2017, I didn’t have much information about CHED, but from 2017 up to 2022, CODAPEC/HITECH was under CHED.
Q. Dr Amoah confirmed that “when CHED interacts with farmers, their aim is to ensure that they protect the interest of cocoa and the problem that confront cocoa are brought to the attention of management of COCOBOD?
A. My Lord that is true.
Q. You know Dr. Baah?
A. My Lord, yes I do.
Q. He was the head of CHED whilst you were the head of CRIG, isthat correct?
A. My Lord that is correct.
Q. If I told you he produced a report of CHED on farmers’ views on lithovit, that would be within his legitimate duties?
A. My Lord that is correct
Q. Now, Dr. Amoah on recertification has this to say “my Lord, I cannot confirm if CRIG went through their processes before issuing these certificates since I was not in the system.
And more so my Lord, this certificate was different from what was issued in 2015. This certificate of Lithovit foliar fertilizer with the trademark R on it has been tampered with by the mother company Zeobita GMB from Germany, the original product…” You were there at the time when the certificate was renewed, did CRIG go through the processes when the certificate of Lithovit was renewed?
A. My Lord, I was the Executive Director from September 2014, and from that date we went through the full processes before renewal. My Lord I signed two certificates for Lithovit, one in 2015 and the other in 2016. The 2015 certificate as I mentioned here previously came to me as an original certificate, and 2016 was for a renewal. My Lord, for the first time, I’m hearing about a certificate issued in 2014. I’m yet to see that certificate.
Q. Sir, the certificate of 2014 was signed by Dr Amoah, you were in office then. You signed certificate when you resumed office from September, isthat correct?
A. My Lord that is correct.
Q. Sir Dr Amoah on the 10th day of October 2018, told the court “and my lord the certificate issued by Dr Anim Kwapong in 2015 and 2016 simply said AgricultLithovit, and it did not state it was a liquid fertilizer. And my lord there is no evidence at CRIG that indicated that Agricultlithovit has been tested at CRIG or reevaluated.” I will ask you three questions. The certificate you issued in 2015 and 2016, did you have any doubt that it was issued for a liquid fertilizer
A. My Lord, I don’t have any doubt at all.
Q. Is true that there is “no evidence at CRIG that indicated lithovit was ever tested by CRIG or re-evaluated?
A. My Lord, it is not true that there is no evidence. We went through the full rigours of testing, per the information made available by the CTCM and also I have mentioned that I did exercise due diligence before signing any certificate that was brought to.my desk. I must add that my secretary worked with Dr Amoah, and did not bring anything contrary to my attention. And also, we have always known the product as lithovit and it has always been a liquid product.
Q. Now, Dr Arthur is also a scientist at CRIG,isthat correct?
A. My Lord that is correct.
Q. On November 2018, Dr Arthur told the court that “my Lord after submitting my report to Mr. Afrifa, no re-evaluation was carried out by Soil Science Division of CRIG.” This was in an answer to a question by the prosecution if there was any re-evaluation prior to the 2017 evaluation. In view of all that you…?
A. My Lord, that statement cannot be correct because, my Lord, we have the CODAPEC/ HITECH report of 2015 and 2016, which was submitted to COCOBOD, which I also used in signing other certificates. So the idea that no other work was done…
Q. Prior to 2017, did the CTCM at CRIG go through property procedures and brought certificates to your table?
A. That is correct.
Q. And the certificate you signed for lithovit came to you also through the CTCM?
A. That is also correct.
Q. So in simple terms, when Dr. Arthur said from 2014 no re-evaluation was done at CRIG on lithovit, can that be correct?
A. My Lord that cannot be correct.
Q. Who put the components, the synthetic on the report?
A. That information is put on by the CTCM by the secretary who prepared the certificates.
Q. So that it is never a personal act of the Director of CRIG, isthat correct?
A. My Lord that is correct.
Q. Now, Dr. Arthur told the court in an answer to the question, “Dr. Arthur I believe that you know that CRIG has no strict policy that all fertilizers are tested for a period of four years and that testing was based on protocol you were speaking the truth” and he answered “yes my Lord.” Isthat statement correct?
A. My Lord, that statement is true and I have explained that here.
Q. Any other position that because a fertilizer has not been tested for three or four years, a strict law of COCOBOD has been broken, cannot be true?
A. My Lord that is right.
Q. Whilst you were at CRIG, products bought by COCOBOD after approval were not brought to CRIG to confirm before they are supplied to farmers, is that the position?
A. My Lord that is so.
Q. When Dr. Arthur stated that in the case of Lithovit, there was a breach as when the product was bought it was not brought to CRIG to authenticate if that was what was tested, is not the normal procedure?
A. My Lord, that is true and in my statement to EOCO, I mentioned the need for that to be done.
Q. When scientists at CRIG used a particular fertilizer as a standard then it means that its properties or qualities are well known to them.
A. My Lord, that is true.
Q. So Dr Arthur on the 26th of November 2018, agreed that Lithovit was used as a standard testing of fertilizers on seedlings in December that would mean that they had concluded testing of Lithovit on seedlings?
A. That is correct, and they must have used it as a standard against others.
Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong, the chemical components that come on the certificate are based on what your scientists find and bring to your attention,isthat correct?
A. My Lord, that information is provided by the Supplier.
Q. It is verified by CRIG?
A. Yes my Lord.
Q. It is verified by CRIG and it is only the chemical composition,which CRIG verifies and can attest to that they put on the certificate.
A. My Lord that is true
Q. The product supplier, A2 and A3, have no hand in the composition that is embossed on the certificate?
A. My Lord, that is true, but they also have to confirm.
