Reverend Father Dr. Emmanuel Kofi OkpotiOddoye, a former chairman of Committee on Testing Chemicals and Machines (CTCM) and Deputy Executive Director of Cocoa Research Institute (CRIG) has refuted the assertion that because he is an Animal Scientist, he doesn’t know the difference between foliar and liquid fertilisers.

According to him, the assertion by Dr. Alfred Arthur, a Soil Scientist at CRIG and Second Prosecution Witness (PW2) in the ongoing GH¢271 million cocoa fertiliser trial was not true.
He explained the difference between the two types of fertilisers, saying “generally, foliar fertilizers are liquid in appearance. Liquid is used to refer to the physical appearance as opposed to solid fertilizers, which are usually in the form of granules.

A foliar fertilizer is applied to foliage of the plant, the foliage being the leaves and stems in some cases.
“There are liquid fertilizers, which are not foliar fertilizers. A good example is fertilizer mixed with irrigation water and are, therefore, applied to the soil and taken up by the roots of the plant.”

Subpoenaed to testify for Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited in the GH¢271.3 million cocoa fertiliser trial as Fourth Defence Witness (DW4), Rev. Fr. Dr. Oddoye stated that lithovit fertiliser, which is being contested by the prosecution to be foliar, therefore, powdery, did not have any issue as of the time he assumed office of the Deputy Executive Director of CRIG and chairman of the CTCM.

DW4 told the court no issue concerning lithovit fertiliser was brought to his attention until the year 2017, when a tribunal was set up at COCOBOD to try him on issues relating to lithovit liquid fertiliser.
The witness was put before the COCOBOD tribunal for withholding information on the testing of lithovit fertilizer from the process.

According to the prosecution, Lithovit Foliar fertilizer did not meet the full two to three years testing testing requirement.
Meanwhile, DW4 told the court that there was no laid down protocol for testing chemicals and machines at the scientific branch of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD).
He said scientists in the various scientific divisions evolve their own protocols based on standard scientific procedures.

Benson Nutsukpui, counsel for second and third accused, Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited, asked the witness while leading him in evidence to explain to the court on how he got to know that there was a protocol.
The witness, however, told the Land Division of the Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, on Tuesday, that he was unable to indicate exactly because he was not involved in those matters as at that time.

DW4 further stated that when he assumed the chairmanship of CTCM, the committee had reviewed reports on the testing of various agro chemicals and machines and that it was obvious that every scientific division had evolved its own methodology over time.
Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited supplied lithovit fertiliser to COCOBOD in the year 2014, at the time Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni was the Board’s Chief Executive.
The three had been put before the court on the claim by the Prosecution that the fertilizer was not good for purpose

Cross examination

Q: You know what is called re-evaluation?
A: Yes, I do.

Q:In relation to agrochemicals, fertilizers and machines, what has re-evaluation have to do with them?
A:When agrochemicals, fertilizers and machines are initially tested, if found to be suitable, a certificate is issued for one year period or one calendar year. For the purposes of issuing a new certificate for the ensuing year, there is the need to do some form of re-evaluation to ascertain that agrochemicals, fertilizers and machines are still effective.

Q:During this re-evaluation where do CRIG get the samples they re-evaluate from?
A: We would request samples from the chemical companies, but would also take samples from the various chemicals being used in the field.

Q:Tell this Court how often are these re-evaluation done?
A:They are done in the second half of the year preceding the year for which the certificates are issued.
Q: When you say the second half of the preceding year, please oblige this Court the month in which CRIG would start this re-evaluation.

A: Usually we start in July.

Q: What role do the chemical companies have in the re-evaluation?
A: The chemical companies supply samples of the various chemicals that they have sold to the Cocobod and in addition CRIG charges them a fee to facilitate the re-evaluation.

Q: Just for the avoidance of doubt outside what you have mentioned in your answer, do they have any other role in the re-evaluation?
A: That is their only involvement.
Q: Who initiates the re-evaluation?
A: The chairman of the CTCM in consultation with Executive Director.

Q: Do the companies have any role whatsoever in initiating the re-evaluation exercise?
A: No. It is the sole responsibility of CRIG.

Q: Take Exhibit 5. Yesterday the very last question. I asked you the product for which the re-evaluation fee was being requested and you answered lithovit. Do you remember?
A: Yes.
Q: Take your mind back to when you assumed duty as Deputy Executive Director of CRIG, did you come to know the product lithovit liquid fertilizer?
A: No. I did not.

Q: At the time you wrote Exhibit 5, did you know what the product lithovit liquid fertilizer was?
A: No. I will say it was just one of the many chemicals that CRIG had tested and which Cocobod had bought.
Q: When did you know that Cocobod bought the product lithovit foliar fertilizer?
A: When letters were being sent to the various chemical companies to inform them of that year’s re-evaluation, a list of the companies that were to be written to and the products that were to be tested formed the basis for the writing of the letters.

Q: This list how was it generated and how did it get to your desk?
A: The list was produced in conjunction with the office of Cocobod specifically the office DCE, Agronomy and Quality Control.

Q: And the product in Exhibit 5, lithovit liquid fertilizer, where did you get it from in relation to the list generated?
A: The product and the company which had supplied the product were on the said list.

Q: Oblige this Court, who was the Deputy Chief Executive, Agronomy and Quality Control at the time that list was generated and you wrote that letter?
A: The DCE, Agronomy and Quality Control at that time was Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah.
Q: You Dr.Oddoye did not invent the name lithovit liquid fertilizer, did you?
A: No. I did not. It was the name that was already in use.

Q: Dr. Alfred Arthur told this Court differently constituted but the proceedings of which was adopted that you did not know the difference between lithovit foliar fertilizer and lithovit liquid fertilizer and you made a mistake. Is that correct?
A: No. it is not correct.

Q: Did you ever tell Dr. Alfred Arthur that because you are an animal scientist you do not know the difference between lithovit foliar fertilizer and liquid fertilizer.
A: No. I did not.
Q: Tell us just for our education whether it is true that foliar fertilizer cannot be liquid.

A: Generally foliar fertilizers are liquid in appearance. Liquid is used to refer to the physical appearance as opposed to solid fertilizers which are usually in the form of granules. A foliar fertilizer is applied to foliage of the plant, the foliage being the leafs and stems in some cases. There are liquid fertilizers which are not foliar fertilizers. A good example is fertilizers which are mixed with irrigation water and are therefore applied to the soil and taken up by the roots of the plant.

Q: You were appointed the Deputy Executive Director at CRIG in 2016? That is correct?
A: That is correct. September to be precise.

Q: Was there any issue or complain pending on lithovit liquid fertilizer before you assumed duty?
A: No. There was no such issue.
Q: What about when you assumed duty, was there any issue that was brought to your attention about lithovit?
A: No. There was no issue with lithovit until the latter part of 2017.

Q: Tell this Court if you know, was lithovit supplied to farmers while you were there as Deputy Executive Director.

A: I cannot give an exact answer. I do not know. CRIG tests and then advises Cocobod as to the suitability of any product brought to CRIG for testing. Thereafter, which product they buy when it is supplied to farmers and all that is not within our purview. Because it is on the list we were given one may assume that it was bought but whether it was being supplied to farmers as at the time I assumed office, I would not know.

Q: You said in your answer right now that “because it is on the list we were given”. Which list and who gave it to you?
A: I was referring to the lists of companies and their products as supplied by Cocobod to which letters for reassessment were to be written.
Q: That is the statement you gave to the police.
A: Yes.

Q: You signed it?
A: Yes, I signed it.

Q: It is in your hand writing?
A: Yes.

COUNSEL FOR 2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED: My Lord, we wish to tender the document through the witness.

COUNSEL FOR REPUBLIC: No objection.

COUNSEL FOR 1ST ACCUSED: No objection.

BY COURT: The police statement of Emmanuel Okpoti Kofi Oddoye aka Rev. Father (Dr. Emmanuel Kofi OkpotiOddoye) DW4/A3 and A3 is tendered in evidence without objection and same is admitted as Exhibit 143/DW4/A2 and A3

Q: You have Exhibit 143. Look at the first two lines. I was appointed Deputy Executive Director of CRIG effective September 2017. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.

Q: Look at the statement in which year were appointed Deputy Executive Director of CRIG?
A: I was appointed in 2017.

Q: Please look at Exhibit 5, look at the date you signed Exhibit 5. What date did you sign Exhibit 5?
A: Exhibit 5 has the date 7th July 2017.
Q: How long were you the Deputy Executive Director of CRIG before you signed Exhibit 5?

A: I would have been Deputy Executive Director for about 10 months but if it pleases the Court, it looks like I made a mistake or an error in the police statement (Exhibit 143) in the first page on the second line. In that I was appointed in September 2016 and not September 2017.

Q: Look at the very last sentence on page 2. You stated “a copy of the report indicates that the product was received as a powder which was then dissolve in water to form a foliar spray. Records also indicate that lithovit was tested on seedling in the nursery”. Which report are you talking about?
A: I am talking about the report on the testing of lithovit fertilizer written by CRIG and forwarded to Cocobod specifically DCE, Agronomy and Quality Control.

Q: And when you say records also indicate that lithovit was tested on seedling, which record are you talking about?
A: I was also referring to the same report that was sent to Cocobod.
Q: Please look at Exhibits B and B1. Is that a copy of the record you referred to?
A: Yes, it is.

Q: Yesterday I showed you the letter and Exhibit H which you wrote which stated that there was no laid down protocols. At the time of that report Exhibits B and B1, was there any protocol laid down.
A: There was. This letter was written to Mr. Akrofi to point out certain errors in his reply to a query written to him by DCE, Agronomy and Quality Control by Cocobod.

Q: You stated that there was no laid down protocols as such and that with the advent of testing chemical and machines at CRIG, scientists in the various scientific divisions evolve their own protocols based on standard scientific procedures and I asked you if you still stood by that statement and you said yes. Do you remember?
A: Yes. I did say yes.
Q: You wrote this in 22nd September 2017, Exhibit B is dated 20th January 2014. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.

Q: Tell this Court if you know. Was there a protocol on testing as at 20th January 2014?
A: Yes, there was.

Q: What was the protocol?
A: I am unable to say exactly because I was not involved in those matters as at that time.
Q: Tell us how you got to know that there was a protocol?

A: When I became the chair of CTCM and as the CTCM reviewed reports on the testing of various agro chemicals and machines, it became obvious that every scientific division had evolved its own methodology over time and that even within a division there could be slight variations in the methods used even though they were all scientifically acceptable. Regrettably, there was no documents in which the various methodologies had been listed as a guide and this is what I was referring to by that statement.

Q: Do you know what guidelines are?
A: I do.

Q: Take yourself back to CRIG and tell us if there is any guideline on testing of chemicals, fertilizers and machinery.
A: When I assumed the chair of the CTCM, there was no such unified documents. I started efforts to put one together based on what they were already doing in their various division. Whether the document is still in use, I cannot tell.

Q: Before we leave the issue of protocol, CTCM at what stage of the testing of fertilizers, chemical and machines does CTCM come in?
A: The CTCM is there at the beginning to receive the sample and related correspondence and ensure that a sample gets to the testing divisions. When all is done there report also comes to the CTCM for review.

Q: Let zero in on the testing itself. Does CTCM play any role in the actual testing?
A: Not directly and if I may explain. The CTCM is composed of scientists from the various divisions. If a scientist on the CTCM is asked to test any sample during the review of the report on the said sample, he or she is replaced by another scientist from the same division.

Q: In terms of the methodology that the scientists conducting the test decide to use, does the CTCM have any role?
A: Yes in a way. Unfortunately some of the thing do not have yes or no answers. As we tried to standardize procedures, we did so in consultation with the various divisions of CRIG. Reports from the field and new relevant scientific information was also considered.

For example, initially insecticide test covered one major period in August through October. Reports from the field indicated that new insects were having a few day in February/ March so the test had to be modified to take this into account.
Q: You said as we tried to standardize procedure, when was this?
A: This was from about the middle of 2017.

Q: This standardization you are talking about was well after the testing of lithovit.
A: Yes. That is true.

Q: All that I am asking is this. If you give a fertilizer sample to a scientist, does he have to come back with a sheet of paper to the CTCM stating how he will do the testing for approval.
A: No. The scientist in consultation with his or her head of division decides what methodology to adopt.
Q: And in conducting test generally scientists sometimes make inferences. That is correct?
A: That is correct. The inferences are made based on data and observation.

Q: What about the available knowledge?
A: It is standard scientific practice to go through available literature to find out what knowledge exist on a particular subject.

Q: Take Exhibit 42. The first page of Exhibit 42 is a letter signed by you. That is correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: You were requesting for samples of ammonia sulphate. That is correct?
A: The request was for two bags and it was meant for seedling trial.

Q: Turn to the next page. This is a memo from Dr. Alfred Arthur to you as the head of the CTCM on the laboratory test on the fertilizer sample of ammonia sulphate. That is correct?
A: That is correct.

Q: And it states in paragraph 2 “The result of the test conducted by the soil science and physiology and by the Biochemistry divisions indicates that the sample is of ammonium sulphate material. The approved report should be sent to Plantco Ltd through the address below”. That is correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: It provides the address of the company in Kumasi where it should be sent to. That is correct?
A: That is correct.

Q: Indeed, it was addressed to your good self. That is also true.
A: It was.

Q: The first minutes, numbered 2 is your minutes.
A: Yes.
Q: What does the EDCR mean?
A: It is the abbreviated form of Executive Director Cocoa Research.

Q: So does it mean that you were addressing the memo to the Executive Director, Cocoa Research.
A: Yes.

Q: You signed your signature there.
A: Yes. Signed and dated.
Q: It was dated 9th May 2017. That is correct?
A: Yes. The date stated is correct.

Q: Please read your memo to this Court.
A: Ammonium sulphate is such a well-known fertilizer. Once the sample has been confirmed, there may not be the need for further testing.

Q: You made that inference from knowledge of ammonium sulphate at the time. That is true.
A: Yes. Actually in consultation with the head of the Soil Science Division, Dr. Alfred Arthur (PW2).
Q: At this point that you made this inference, you as the head of CTCM was advising that they can dispense with further testing because of your knowledge of ammonium sulphate.
A: Yes.

Q: Look at minutes 3 on Exhibit 42. It is addressed to you the chairman of CTCM. That is correct?
A: That is correct.

Q: Can you identify the signature and whom it is coming from?
A: It is the signature of Dr. F. M. Amoah the then Executive Director of CRIG.
Q: And he addressed it to you in your capacity as the chairman of the CTCM. That is correct?
A: That is correct.

Q: He asked the first question “Does this report mean that the fertilizer could be okay without field test. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.

Q: And he further asked what is the view of the CTCM?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: Drawing inference from knowledge at the time by scientists conducting the test and the CTCM, is very normal in testing of agrochemicals, fertilizers and machines at CRIG. That is true?
A: Yes. Some inferences may be drawn.

Q: An inference like in Exhibit 42 where your knowledge in ammonium sulphate is enough to waive field trials. That is very normal at CRIG.
A: In this case, no. A special case is made here for ammonium sulphate and other common nitrogenous fertilizers like urea which had been in use since time immemorial.

Q: When you made this special case for ammonium sulphate and other nitrogenous fertilizers, in this case there was no need for further trials in the case of ammonium sulphate fertilizer brought by Plantco.

A: That is correct.
Q: Based on that it is true that where the nutrients of a particular fertilizer have been thoroughly researched by CRIG, the scientists made inferences when they are testing a new with the same nutrient.

A: No. That is not so. A special case is made for ammonium sulphate and as far as I can remember urea, all other fertilizers even if the nutrients are similar to what had been tested before must go through testing.

Q: This position that you have just stated, is it your personal position or that of the CTCM?
A: It is the position of the CTCM in consultation with Soil Science Division.

Q: In which year was that position decided?
A: I cannot say.
Q: Dr. Franklin Amoah (PW1) was very clear that there are no laid down protocol of the testing of fertilizers and machines just like your letter stated. Would he be correct?
A: Yes, he would.

Q: After you gave this advice per your minutes in Exhibit 42, what happened?
A: To be safe and in consultation with the Executive Director, CRIG we decided to write Exhibit 42 which forwards the report to Cocobod and also request fertilizer for the trial.

Q: What happened to your request?
A: To be honest I cannot remember.

Q: Up to the time you left CRIG, did you come across any other report on that fertilizer apart from this one that was tendered as Exhibit 42.
A: Again, I cannot remember. If I may explain. The volume of the materials that passed through my table was voluminous.

Q: You said in consultation with your Executive Director and to be safe you wrote Exhibit 42. What were you expecting the DCE, Agronomy and Quality Control to do?
A: I expected that he will forward the report to Plantco and also request the two bags of fertilizer for the trial.

Q: Do you know whether the fertilizer was received?
A: I do not remember.
Q: Do you know whether any further test was conducted?
A: I cannot remember.

BY COURT: Further evidence in chief of DW4/A2 and A3 to continue and the witness is temporarily discharged.