AG’s witness, Adu-Ampomah admits his committee members had no expertise in fertilizer

It has emerged in court that the committee which work primarily led to the prosecution of former COCOBOD boss, Dr. Stephen Opuni, and businessman Seidu Agongo had no expert vested in fertilizer testing.

The committee investigated alleged fertiliser testing anomalies at the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG).

The third prosecution witness, Dr. Yaw Adu-Ampomah who is the special advisor to the Minister of Agriculture on cocoa affairs admitted under cross-examination that the four-member committee he chaired had no experts in this area which was part of their mandate.

Dr. Adu-Ampomah whose specialty is plant breeding and plant genetics had admitted in court that he is not s soil scientist, The other committee members were all lawyers. They were Mr Clottey Sefa, Director of Legal Affairs at COCOBOD; Mr Francis Opoku, Solicitor Secretary to the board and Mr Laing, a lawyer from the legal department, COCOBOD.

Interestingly, after interrogating scientists who were involved in the testing of lithovit fertilizer the committee concluded that the scientific report of the experts was rather “unscientific”.

Dr. Adu-Ampomah has been testifying against the former CEO of COCOBOD Dr. Stephen Opuni and a businessman, Seidu Agongo, who are standing trial for allegedly causing financial loss of GHC271.3 million to the state which led to the distribution of ‘substandard fertiliser’ to cocoa farmers.

He has been cited for perjury for giving contradictory accounts in court, which hearing has been slated for December 17.

Dr. Adu-Ampomah was the Deputy Chief Executive at Cocobod from 2009 and finally retired on 2013. After the 2016 elections, he was called back from retirement to head the transition team at COCOBOD, primarily to interrogate the activities of COCOBOD in the previous administration.

He returned to COCOBOD in 2017 as Deputy Chief Executive before moving on to the Agric Ministry in October 2018 as the adviser to the sector minister on cocoa affairs.

In court on Thursday, December 5, counsel for Dr. Opuni, Samuel Cudjoe put to the witness it was “highly unprofessional” for his committee which doesn’t include any expert in the field of fertiliser testing to “overrule a scientific report by CRIG”.

He rejected the position of the counsel and told the court the committee called one Dr Ofori Frimpong, he described as a “seasoned soil scientist”, noting that “during the interrogation we all came to the conclusion that it was unscientific because if you go through the report, you will see that Dr Ofori Frimpong, the senior-most soil scientist at the time stated that it was very unscientific”.

Dr. Ofori Frimpong went on retirement in early 2015 and was brought back to COCOBOD in 2017 and was also part of the government transition team.

It however turned out that Dr. Ofori Frimpong himself was a subject of investigation and appeared before the committee to answer a query on his alleged involvement in Duapa fertilizer whose document Dr. Adu-Ampomah said was forged.

The court also heard that throughout the committee’s sitting, Dr. Opuni who was accused of asking scientists to shorten the testing of lithovit fertilizer was not invited to defend himself. The witness however said the first accused was not invited because he was no longer in employment of COCOBOD, explaining that they invited only persons who were still at post.

Dr. Adu-Ampomah however admitted that there was no documentary proof that Dr. Stephen Opuni instructed scientists at CRIG to shorten the testing of lithovit fertilizer.

“Dr, because you hadn’t given Dr Opuni a hearing, you had no basis for concluding that he pressured scientists to shorten the period for testing,” lawyer Cudjoe said. The witness responded, “My lord, that was the reason why we said the matter should be further investigated because those who appeared before the committee, their answers suggested the involvement of the 1st accused. That is why we recommended so.”

Earlier, when asked if the committee made any adverse findings against Dr. Opuni, the witness answered in the negative “no”.

“And Dr, I am putting it to you that you deliberately didn’t call Dr Opuni to appear before the committee because you didn’t want to give him an opportunity to defend himself,” the witness was told. Dr. Adu-Ampomah then replied, “No my lord. It wasn’t within our mandate to call him because he was no longer employed at COCOBOD.”

Find excerpts of Thursday’s cross-examination below:

Q. Dr, the members of your committee which investigated the alleged malpractices in the testing of agrochemicals at CRIG, the report of which was tendered as exhibit H does not include any expert on fertilisers. Isn’t it?

A. Yes, my lord.

Q. In fact, the committee is made up of 4 lawyers and yourself. Isn’t it?

A. Yes.

Q. In your committee’s hearing, you never invited 1st accused to appear before you. Isn’t it?

A. Yes, my lord.

Q. Dr., although you didn’t invite 1st accused, you made adverse findings against him in your committee’s report. Isn’t it?

A. No my lord, the committee suggested that the 1st accused’s conduct should be reported to a state investigation institution for further investigations.

Q. Dr, because you hadn’t given Dr Opuni a hearing, you had no basis for concluding that he pressured scientists to shorten the period for testing.

A. My lord, that was the reason why we said the matter should be further investigated because those who appeared before the committee, their answers suggested the involvement of the 1st accused. That is why we recommended so.

Q. And in fact, Dr Amoah informed the committee that he never succumbed to any pressure from any quarters including from Dr Opuni.

A. Yes, my lord. He said he was being pressurised but never succumbed

Q. In fact, as you sit here and during your entire investigations, there is not a single document from Dr Opuni, directing the CRIG scientists to shorten the testing if any fertiliser including lithovit.

A. Yes, my lord.

Q. And I am putting it to you that Dr Opuni never instructed and or directed any scientist to shorten the test for any fertiliser and or agrochemical including lithovit.

A. No my lord. The committee was told by Mr Afrifa and Dr Amoah and another scientist, Dr Acheampong that they were at one time instructed by Dr Opuni to shorten the testing of the chemicals.

Q. In fact, Dr Adu-Ampomah, from your time as executive director of CRIG and also deputy CE A&QC of COCOBOD, any such serious directive as this in your former institutions would have been in writing and not oral.

A. That should be the norm but, in this case, the scientists, who appeared before the committee, said they were instructed by the 1st accused in his office.

Q. And, in fact, don’t you think that is the more reason why it was very necessary for your committee to have at least invited Dr Opuni before coming out with your findings.

A. The committee’s work was to investigate the officers who were at post at the time. The 1st accused was not at post at the time of the investigation and that is why we recommended that state investigative bodies should do further investigation on him.

Q. Dr, when you wanted from Dr Opuni and specifically, his official mobile phone you called Dr Opuni yourself and asked him to return the mobile phone to you and this was complied with. Isn’t it

A. Yes, my lord the norm of the practice is that officers hand over all state property in the case of COCOBOD to COCOBOD when officers are no longer at post and that was what was done

Q. And Dr, before this committee was empaneled, you have told this court that at the transition you suspected and or was informed that there were some anomalies in the procurement and testing of some agrochemicals and fertilizers. Isn’t it?

A. Yes, my lord.

Q. And Dr, you were the one, personally, who issued all the queries to the witnesses who appeared before this committee. Isn’t it?

A. Yes, my lord.

Q. And you were the same person who sat and chaired this committee?

A. Yes, my lord.

Q. And Dr at the same time, when this committee was sitting, you’ve also informed this court that you reported the matter to EOCO for investigations. Isn’t it?

A. Yes, my lord the two were ongoing concurrently.

Q. And Dr, I am putting it to you that you deliberately didn’t call Dr Opuni to appear before the committee because you didn’t want to give him an opportunity to defend himself.

A. No my lord. It wasn’t within our mandate to call him because he was no longer employed at COCOBOD.

Q. And that if you had given Dr Opuni the opportunity of defending himself, you will not have come out with these findings.

A. My lord, as I said we didn’t have the mandate and that is why we concluded that the case be referred to the state investigation authorities to do further probing into the matter

Q. Dr, I am putting it to you that it is highly unprofessional for a committee which doesn’t include any expert in the field of fertiliser testing to overrule a scientific report by CRIG.

A. My lord, no. The committee called Dr Ofori Frimpong, a seasoned soil scientist whose name also appeared on the report and interrogated him in the presence of Mr Afrifa the other soil scientist and Mr Dogbatsey another soil scientist and Dr Amoah, agronomist, with me as a scientist also present and during the interrogation we all came to the conclusion that it was unscientific because if you go through the report, you will see that Dr Ofori Frimpong, the senior-most soil scientist at the time stated that it was very unscientific

Q. Dr, in fact contrary to what you are saying, Dr Amoah on page 15 of his cross-examination of 23rd July 2018 states in paragraph 3 that he interrogated the report before submitting it to COCOBOD.

A. Yes, at the committee he said he read through it.

Q. Dr, that you are being untruthful to this court when you state that Dr Amoah informed the committee that he read through the report. You are being untruthful.

A. My lord, it’s not true. At the committee, we interrogated Dr Amoah extensively on this issue because he signed the first certificate and the committee wanted to know why the chemical had not been tested on mature trees but the scientists had concluded that it could be used on mature trees and that was when he said he just read through. And my lord, even though Dr Amoah is an agronomist, he is not a soil scientist and that is why we called in Dr Ofori Frimpong, the topmost soil scientist to assist the committee.

Q. In fact, contrary to what you have just told this court, Dr Ofori Frimpong was not called to assist the committee in respect of lithovit fertiliser in any shape or form.

A. My lord the committee investigated several chemicals. Lithovit which had not been properly tested, Duapa cocoa fertiliser which document had been forged and other insecticides. So, at certain stages we would call various scientists who are relevant to the subject being discussed. I don’t have the report here but I know that in several instances, Dr ofori Frimpong was called to assist.

Q. Contrary to what you just told this court, you actually queried Dr Ofori Frimpong to explain why disciplinary actions should not be taken against him for failing to conduct proper testing of a fertiliser called Duapa and not as a witness or expert before the committee.

A. No, my lord. In several instances, in the report, you will see that we have called the soil scientists whose names appeared in the report together with Dr Ofori Frimpong for deliberation. In the case of the query counsel was talking about, it was even shocking to him because he did not know that his name appeared on that report indicating that he had worked on Duapa cocoa fertiliser.

Q. Dr, in a query dated 15th September 2017 which is addressed to Dr K. Ofori Frimpong, you asked him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him and that is why he appeared before the committee.

A. No my lord. Dr Ofori Frimpong appeared on several occasions. The first one was in response to this query which the committee found that he had wrongly been queried because he was not involved in that forged document. His subsequent appearances were to assist the committee in matters of soil science.

Q. And Dr, I am further putting it to you that in your final evidence in chief, and specifically on page 9 of the proceedings on 20th May 2019, you were being untruthful when you told this court that when Mr Afrifa appeared before the committee he informed the committee that he didn’t see any sample of lithovit.

A. My lord no, the committee asked Mr Afrifa whether he instructed Dr Arthur to work on the sample and he said yes. And the committee asked him whether he saw the sample himself and he said no that he instructed Dr Arthur to work on it. And, so, the committee further asked him, is lithovit liquid or powder? And he said it is liquid, 100% liquid. So, the committee was a bit baffled. And when we further probed, he said it was in plastic containers and when we further probed, he said it was looking like sand and my lord, that is why the committee found that Mr Afrifa was not being truthful to the committee

Q. In fact, nowhere in the report did he ever inform the committee that he didn’t see the lithovit.

A. My lord, he said he didn’t see it.

Q. Show us in the report where he said he didn’t see it.

A. My lord, he said it. I can’t show you in this report right now, it is voluminous. Counsel showed us the letter that accompanied the sample from the company on which the director had minuted it to the head of department and the head of department had minuted it to Dr Arthur and normally it is the scientist who is going to work in the sample who opens it.

Q. Dr, I am putting it to you that Dr Stephen Opuni, first accused, has not had any personal chat and or discussions with Mr Afrifa and or Dr Arthur and asked them to shorten and or interfere in their work with lithovit.

A. My lord, Mr Afrifa and Dr Amoah and one Dr Acheampong told the committee that the first accused asked them to shorten test on agrochemicals.