A former Director of Finance at Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Charles Tetteh Kwao Dodoo, who is testifying as witness for former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of COCOBOD, Dr. Stephen Opuni, has insisted that CEOs of the state institution do not write letters on its behalf.
According to him, to the best of his knowledge, Chief Executive Officers of Ghana Cocoa Board only sign letters prepared by the various units within the entity.
His statement was in response to a question by Samuel Codjoe, counsel for Dr. Opuni, who inquired from the witness what he had to say about the prosecution’s stance that some letters were written by Dr. Opuni seeking approval from the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) to sole source certain fertilisers.
The witness, who was shown a letter addressed to the CEO of PPA seeking approval to sole source a number of fertilisers, indicated that “this letter was written by the procurement unit with inputs from CODAPEC/HI-TEC unit. The Chief Executive of Ghana Cocoa Board will only sign. The Chief Executive of Ghana Cocoa Board from my personal knowledge does not write letters and this particular one that I’m holding falls in the same vein.”
Main Trial
Dr. Opuni, businessman Seidu Agongo as well as the businessman’s Agricult Ghana Limited, are before an Accra High Court slapped with 27 charges including causing financial loss to the state, defrauding by false pretences, conspiracy to commit crime, abetment of crime, money laundering, corruption by public officer and contravention of the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) Act.
Together, they are accused of causing a financial loss of over GH¢217 million to the state through the sale and purchase of the controversial Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser for cocoa, which the prosecution has insisted did not follow the testing standards.
Defence
Dr. Opuni last Thursday opened his defence and called the former Director of Finance at COCOBOD to testify on his behalf.
Mr. Dodoo, continuing his evidence-in-chief yesterday, was asked whether it was his first time seeing the letter addressed to PPA seeking approval, and he indicated that he had been shown the letter previously when Dr. Opuni’s lawyers invited him to their office.
“I was shown this letter when the lawyers for the first accused invited me to their office. I looked at the letter and I recalled that at about the same time a number of letters similar to the one I’m holding covering other agrochemicals were written. The lawyers showed me other letters and I informed the lawyers that there should be more letters which are not seen,” Mr. Dodoo said.
“Look at Exhibit Q according to the prosecution, when the PPA wrote Exhibit P (value for money analysis), first accused (Dr. Opuni) responded by Exhibit Q and misled the PPA with respect to the value for money analysis. What do you have to say to Exhibit Q?” Mr. Codjoe asked.
“My Lord, Exhibit P which called for the value for money analysis much as it was addressed to the Chief Executive, it will be sent downward; that is through the ladder of the management hierarchy and when you look at the response – Exhibit Q, the distribution list, the procurement manager is down the list. This tells that the letter was written by the procurement manager but signed by the Chief Executive,” the witness responded.
The lawyer then asked the witness whether he remembered the first time Lithovit fertiliser was purchased by COCOBOD, and he said he will not recollect because a number of fertilisers get introduced from the operational chain or during the course of the year.
Fungicide & Insecticides
Meanwhile, the court has prohibited the defence lawyers from asking questions regarding a letter from COCOBOD to PPA seeking approval to sole source fungicides and insecticides after the prosecution led by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa raised an objection.
Mr. Codjoe had solicited answers from the defence witness regarding the document but Mrs. Obuobisa objected that the said document was rejected by the court on May 7, 2021 hence no longer exists before the court, and the lawyer could be eliciting responses on a non-existing document.
“I also wish to state that he cannot seek through the back door to surreptitiously steal this question through to the witness. My lord the question should be disallowed and all other references to Exhibit 62 be accordingly disallowed,” she argued.
Mr. Codjoe opposed the objection by stating that “by the combined effect of Section 6 and 8 of the Evidence Act, in so far as the objection was not taken at the time Exhibit 62 was tendered, same was properly admitted and this is therefore, a proper instance for the witness to refer to the exhibit. We add that when this court on the May 7, 2021, suo motum rejected it, it engaged in an act which was against the provisions of statute.”
The court presided over by Justice Clemence Honyenuga, a Supreme Court judge sitting as an additional High Court judge, upheld the objection on grounds that it is clear that the majority decision of the Supreme Court dated October 26, 2021 which restored his ruling on a submission of no case did not restore the rejected exhibits, therefore, the reference made to the document cannot stand and all references to it are of no effect.
Hearing continues on December 9, 2021.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak