Dr Gilbert Anim Kwapong, a subpoenaed Witness of the former Chief Executive of the Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni, has once again accused the transition Committee on cocoa, chaired by Dr Yaw Adu Ampomah, of churning out falsehood.

He said some of the statements contained in the Dr Yaw Adu Ampomah’s Committee report, which were attributed to him are not correct.

Answering questions under cross-examination by the Chief State Attorney (CSA), Mrs Evelyn Keelson, on Thursday, the Witness told the Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh that some of the insertions are so obvious that he could not have made those statements.

For instance, he said it was captured in the report that he was appointed into office as the Executive Director of Cocoa Research Institute on September 21, 2014 whereas he took that position rather on September 5, 2014.

He further stated that a question captured in the report, purported to have been posed to him by the four-member Committee was also false, adding that he was not given a copy of the report and hence, could not benefit from its content.

The Witness previously told the court that a quote attributed to him in the report that: “I didn’t have any idea that in the past it (lithovit fertiliser) was powder. It was recently that I got to know it was powder,” was also false.

However, the Prosecution rebutted, arguing that whatever misgivings the witness had about the report was just an afterthought.

She said Exhibit H is an official report of COCOBOD, therefore, Opuni’s eighth Defence Witness (DW8) is only running away from his evidence before the committee.

Additionally, CSA Mrs. Keelson said the Witness signed lithovit fertiliser certificate without basis, thus no test was conducted on the agro-chemical product, stating “5 percent urea (on the certificate) was only an afterthought, aimed to justify the procurement of Lithovit liquid fertiliser by COCOBOD, through A1 (Opuni)”

She further argued that the urea was either contained in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) that accompanied the lithovit to COCOBOD, or known to the agro-chemical manufacturer, Zeovita in Germany.

DW8 disagreed and stated that although he did not see the test report of lithovit, he signed its certificate because he had no course to doubt the professionalism and the integrity of the scientists on the Committee on Testing Chemicals and Machines (CTCM) who presented the certificate for him to sign.

The Witness also said he heard for the first time that some farmers drank lithovit on their farms and it tasted like water, through one Dr. William Mensah, at a meeting in Cocoa House and chaired by Dr. Adu Ampomah, which Dr. Franklin Manu Amoah, a Prosecution Witness in the case was also present.

In all, DW8 has attacked the credibility of three Witnesses of the Attorney-General, Dr Adu Ampomah, Dr. Franklin Manu Amoah and Dr Alfred Arthur.

Dr Adu Ampomah was a former Deputy Chief Executive of Agronomy at COCOBOD and later served as the Special Advisor to the Minister for Agriculture, Dr. Afriyie Akoto, on cocoa affairs, as well as moving on to become a member of the National Development Planning Committee (NDPC).

He chaired the Committee that investigated the alleged malpractices in the testing of agro-chemicals at CRIG and became the prosecution star Witness in the trial of Dr. Opuni and the suppliers of lithovit fertiliser, Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited.

The accused persons are standing trial for purchasing, supplying and distributing allegedly a ‘substandard fertiliser’ to cocoa farmers, which has caused the Republic of Ghana to lose some GH¢271.3 million.

Continuation of cross-examination by Evelyn Keelson;

Q. Dr Anim Kwapong, you signed Exhibit 4 on 21st March 2015, is that right?

A. My Lord that is right. My Lord, I signed this certificate because the CTCM presented it to my desk and they did so because Dr. FM Amoah had side-lined or sidestepped the committee for testing chemicals and machines and the laid down procedure for issuing certificates.

They were not aware of the fact that Dr. Amoah had gone ahead to issue the certificate, which was shown to me in this court. My Lord, I have a copy of the relevant copies to prove what I’m saying. I want to show it to the court.

Q. Are you aware that as of 21st March 2015, when you signed Exhibit 4, COCOBOD had approved through A1 and had procured lithovit liquid fertilizer for 2014/15, 2015/16 Cocoa Seasons?

A. My Lord, I’m not aware.
Q. I’m putting it to you that Exhibit 4, which you signed on 21st March 2015, could, therefore, not have been an original certificate for the Lithovit fertilizer?
A. My Lord, counsel is not right because she does not understand how we go about issuing certificates.

Q. The certificate you issued, Exhibit 4, was issued by you without recourse to any test report issued by CRIG and approved by COCOBOD?

A. My Lord, counsel is once again not correct. My lord, that is not correct. Certificates as I mentioned in my statement to the CID, indicate that certificates are issued by the CTCM and the issued certificate is brought to my desk for my signature, and the test report they used is the report that was showed to me here a couple of days ago.

Q. This report, which was shown to you on the test conducted by CRIG, which is Exhibit B1, was only seen by you in this courtroom?

A. My Lord that is so. I didn’t have to see that report because as I have already mentioned in this court, I trusted the professionalism and the integrity of the CTCM. All that I needed to do, my Lord, was to call for the letter that granted permission for the certificate to be issued. My Lord, I have a copy of that letter here in my pocket. My Lord, I would like to see the exhibit counsel referred to.

Q. Because Exhibit 4, which you signed was not based on the test conducted by CRIG on the original sample of Lithovit, which was submitted for testing by A3, that’s why your certificate has 5 percent urea, a chemical that was not found in the sample of Lithovit submitted and tested by CRIG?

A. My Lord that is not correct.

Q. I’m putting it to you that the certificate you signed on 21st March 2015, which has 5 percent urea was only an afterthought aimed at justifying the procurement of Lithovit liquid fertilizer, which had neither been tested by CRIG nor approved by COCOBOD?
Benson: The question is not fair to the witness

Q. I’m putting it to you that the certificate you signed on 21st March 2015, which has 5 percent urea was only an afterthought aimed at justifying the procurement of Lithovit liquid fertiliser by COCOBOD through A1?

A. My Lord that is not correct.
Q. Because that Lithovit liquid fertiliser, which was procured by COCOBOD had neither been tested by CRIG nor approved by COCOBOD?

A. My Lord that is not correct.
Q. The 5 percent urea on the certificate you signed is neither supported by the MSDS from Zeovita, the manufacturer of Lithovit, nor by the test conducted on the substance by the scientists at CRIG?

A. My Lord that is true with regards to the information on the MSDS. The MSDS that was shown to me here, I pointed out some different elements in the test report that were not contained in the MSDS and with respect to the test results and the certificate, which was presented to me. The certificate had come to my desk with all these different elements already embossed.

My Lord, I didn’t have to challenge the CTCM on what they brought to my desk for my signature. My Lord, a couple of days when we were here, I had cause after going through the report proposed a few questions.

My Lord, I said among other things that I would have been reviewed that report if it had been brought to my attention. My Lord, after seeing the report and seeing the authors who have prepared and submitted that report, I have doubt as to why the report was poorly done, and therefore, referring to it as shoddy.

My Lord, the name of Dr. Alfred Arthur on that report for what he has done in the past at CRIG we had to suspend him and have him transferred from CRIG Tafo to CRIG Bunso substation to take him away from the research laboratory. My Lord, the scientist has no credibility from my point of view.

Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong I’m putting it to you that you have no capacity at all to question the report, Exhibit B1, or Exhibit A1, that’s the MSDS because you have not conducted any research or test on lithovit fertiliser, I’m putting that to you?

A. My Lord, that is not right. I have been trained as a research scientist to a terminal degree a PhD. My Lord, I have read several research reports and I have the capacity to understand each and every one of them. I have also reviewed research papers, and manuscripts prepared for publication in international journals.

Q. I’m putting it to you further that Dr. Alfred Arthur is a credible soil scientist and there is no standing adverse report on him.
Codjoe: I object to this question on the basis that this is misleading because Dr Alfred Arthur, PW2 during my cross-examination of him admitted that he was suspended based on an investigation
Court: I think that the witness is capable of answering the question.

A. My Lord, that is not correct. The findings of the ad-hoc committee set up at CRIG under the recommendation of COCOBOD had the report submitted to COCOBOD for advice. Administratively, we were directed to implement the recommendations of the findings, and that is why Dr. Arthur was officially suspended for three months and transferred to the CRIG substation at Bunso.

Q. So are you aware that Dr. Alfred Arthur was subsequently brought back to CRIG and at a point in time he held the position of Acting Executive Director at CRIG?
A. My Lord, I’m aware because it was mentioned to me in this court.
Q. The report, Exhibit B1, which was authored by three scientists led by A.A Afrifa was approved by COCOBOD, is that not so?

A. My Lord that is so.
Q. And Exhibit B1 remains the only report on the testing of Lithovit fertiliser by CRIG?
A. My Lord that is so. And the report was prepared by CRIG scientists with recommendations to COCOBOD to approve.

Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong, you appeared before the disciplinary committee that investigated alleged malpractice in the testing of agrochemicals at CRIG, is that not so?
A. My lord that is so.

Q. Have a look at Exhibit H page 42, the last paragraph. In that paragraph, you told the Committee that you believe in the professionalism of the scientists at CRIG and had no cause at all that they have not been acting professionally?

A. My Lord that is so, I’m reading page 42, and I believe there are insertions that I did not make. So coming into the office on 21st September 2014, lithovit was submitted on May 15, 2013, and the first certificate had been issued on 21st January 2014″. My Lord, this assertion cannot be attributed to me. Because I didn’t enter office in 21st September 2014. I entered office on the 5th of September, 2014.

Q. Go to page 44 of Exhibit H. To a question posed by the committee on the basis of the renewal certificate you signed, you told the committee among others that “in this instance there were no former report to the Executive director.” Is that not so?

A. My Lord, to the best of my knowledge, I don’t think I was asked this question, and most of the things written here that have been attributed to me cannot be right.
Q. I’m putting it to you that Exhibit H is the official record of the committee and your answer to this court is again an afterthought?

A. My Lord, this is an official report from COCOBOD, which has been attributed to me. But what has been attributed to me once again cannot be right.

Q. This is because Exhibits 4 and 4a, which you signed can neither be described as an original certificate nor a renewal certificate?
A. My Lord that is not correct. The first one is the original certificate and the second one is renewal.

Q. And it is clear from those certificates that you did not see any report?

A. My Lord it is true I didn’t see the report. And my lord, it is so because the work had been done several years before I came, for those reports that were issued when I was at post, I had to go through thoroughly before it went to Cocoa House.

With respect to Lithovit, things had already been done, and therefore, I had to rely solely on the letter that granted permission for the certificate to be issued.

Q. Dr. Anim Kwapong, you are not aware of the scientific report issued on lithovit fertiliser procured by A1 from A2 and A3 by Ghana Standards Authority and the University of Ghana Chemistry Department?

A. That is so.
Q. So you would, therefore, not be in a position to understand the findings they made, is that not so?

A. My Lord that is so.
Q. You told this court that you were transferred from CRIG to CHED on 30th January 2017?
A. My Lord, the letter I received stated 30th January 2017, I was transferred to Cocoa House and not CHED.

Q. So when did you start working at CHED?
A. My Lord, I started working at CHED I think around the 2nd of May 2017.
Q. You told the court that you could not speak for CHED on event covering 2014 to 2016, is that not so?

A. My Lord that is so.
Q. You have no idea how much COCOBOD spent on fertilisers between 2014 and 2016?
A. My Lord that is so, and it is so for all the time I have been with CRIG/COCOBOD.

Q. You also have no idea of the number, or type of fertilisers supplied to farmers within that period?
A. My Lord that is so.

Q. In your statement to the police, Exhibit 127, page 5, you told EOCO in that statement that it came to your attention through Dr. Mensah that some farmers had complained that the Lithovit fertiliser was not efficacious and that when they tasted it was not different from water. This is in your statement exhibit 127?

A. My Lord, it is in my statement that is true, but I was referring to a statement made by Dr. William Mensah at a meeting in Cocoa House that was chaired by Dr. Adu Ampomah. Dr. Amoah was also present at that meeting.

Q. So Dr. Mensah actually told you that some farmers said they tasted the Lithovit and it was not different from water?

A. My Lord, it is so, but I want to read the statement “The complaint on lithovit only came to my attention when it was mentioned by Dr. William Mensah that farmers have indicated that the product is not efficacious and that some farmers have tasted the product and it was not different from water.”

Prosecution. My Lord that would be all for the witness