Dr. Stephen Opuni
Chief Inspector Thomas Prempeh Mercer, the investigator in the case of former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Dr. Stephen Opuni, yesterday disagreed with Seidu Agongo’s lawyer on claims that his investigations did not reveal any farmer-complaints on the use of the Lithovit liquid fertilizer recorded by the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG).
Farmers Comment
He told the court that although their investigation was not about looking into farmer-complaints on the use of the Lithovit fertilizer which was at the centre of the trial, they nonetheless, spoke to two farmers about the efficacy of the product.
Although he admitted that the number was insignificant, taking into account the quantum of cocoa farmers in the country, there were negative remarks passed on the use of the Lithovit fertilizer.
Mr. Agongo’s counsel, Nutifafa Nutsukpui, during his cross-examination of the investigator, put it to him thus, “as part of your investigations you never came across any farmer complaints against Lithovit liquid fertilizer recorded by CRIG or by any other division of the COCOBOD.”
The witness disagreed and told the court that there was a complaint about the fertilizer, lodged by the then-Eastern Regional Best Farmer, Nana Obeng Akrofi, who had stated that “the Lithovit fertilizer that was introduced to them by the CRIG claiming it would double their yield at the end of the season, had produced nothing.”
Investigation Focus
He then went to tell the court about the focus of the their investigations into the matter, which he said, included the nature of the Lithovit fertilizer that Mr. Agongo’s Agricult Ghana Limited had introduced to the COCOBOD, as well as what was tested and the ensuing report that was generated.
“Our investigation was not centred on complaints made by farmers to CRIG, as to whether the Lithovit liquid fertilizer COCOBOD procured from A2 (Agongo) and A3 (Agricult) is good or bad. But my lord, our investigation was on the fact that, both A3 and its Chief Executive and A2, convinced the COCOBOD in May 2013 that they had an agrochemical named Lithovit Foliar Fertilizer in powdered form, which when applied to cocoa, would produce more yield,” he said.
Powdered Sample
He added, “My lord, it is on this basis that on May 15, 2013, COCOBOD forwarded the sample Lithovit Foliar Fertilizer for testing. My lord, the final report that was forwarded to COCOBOD also indicated that the Lithovit Foliar Fertilizer was in powdered form. My lord, so our investigation was not on the farmers, but rather on the testing of the Lithovit and what was supplied.”
He continued, “However, it became necessary in the course of investigations to speak to two farmers; and this was just insignificant, considering the number of cocoa farmers we have in Ghana. My lord, one of them is the exhibit that counsel tendered through me, and the other is the statement, which is not in the court presently; which is the statement of the then-Eastern Regional Best Farmer, Nana Obeng Akrofi. He was also the Chairman of the Eastern Region Cocoa Farmers, Coffee and Shea nut Producers Association, and stated that the Lithovit that was introduced to them by CRIG to double their yield at the end of the season had yielded nothing. And, my Lord, I am saying so to state our facts on the investigations we conducted.”
“I am putting it to you that Nana Obeng Akrofi did not say what you attributed to him in respect of the Lithovit liquid fertilizer; what he rather did say was that he used to harvest 50 bags of cocoa from his 10-acre farm; but after application of the Lithovit liquid fertilizer, he had harvested only 52 bags of the cocoa from the same farm acreage. That is correct?” Mr. Nutsukpui further fired at the investigator.
“No my lord,” the investigator rebutted and continued, “I am saying so because according to Mr. Akrofi, the Lithovit introduced to them was to double their yield; but it did not turn out to be so.”
Give-and-take
The lawyer further questioned the witness about the involvement of the Cocoa Health Extension Division (CHED) of COCOBOD, in ascertaining farmer-complaints against the fertilizers.
Lawyer: You previously told this court that ascertaining farmer complaints was not part of the remit of CHED, but rather of the CRIG. Is that correct?
Witness: No, my LORD. What I told this court was that CHED was not the unit to generate a report on whether an agrochemical or fertilizer was doing well or not, but rather the Social Science and Statistics Unit (SSSU) including CHED, both under the CRIG.
Lawyer: I am putting it to you that CHED is never a unit under CRIG but a division on its own.
Witness: My lord, that is not so. Both CHED and all the other divisions at CRIG report to the Deputy Chief Executive of COCOBOD in charge of Agronomy and Quality Control. So it is not a different division on its own.
Mr. Nutsukpui also confronted the witness about the reason for charging the two accused in respect of the GH¢25,000 deposit Mr. Agongo made into the account of Dr. Opuni. Conflicting statements were given when they were interrogated separately.
Lawyer: As part of your investigation, did you find out how much A1 (Opuni) earned as monthly salary at the COCOBOD?
Witness: Yes my lord.
Lawyer: How much did he earn per month?
Witness: As part of the findings of our investigations, we obtained the pay slip of A1 (Opuni), from the time of his assumption, till the time he left office. I can produce it if I am asked to. I don’t have the exact figure in my head.
Lawyer: Would you remember if that figure was more or less than GH¢25,000?
Witness: It is way above GH¢25,000.
Lawyer: So it is entirely possible that the GH¢25,000 is A1’s own money. That is correct?
Witness: My lord that is not so. I have explained in this court and produced evidence to support that. A1, in giving a statement to the police said that he gave the money to A2 to be deposited into his account. A2 on the other hand said he did not remember it as such, but what he did remember was that he paid GH¢25,000 to help him cater for needy children, and My lord, it was the same GH¢25,000.
Lawyer: Irrespective of whether or not you believe A1, the GH¢25,000 was within his monthly earning at COCOBOD. That is correct?
Witness: Yes my lord.
The court presided over by Justice Clemence Honyenuga, a Supreme Court Judge sitting with additional responsibilities, adjourned the matter to March 29, 2021 for the continuation of hearing.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak