The Attorney General’s Office yesterday questioned the credibility of the evidence of a former employee of Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) who had claimed that the controversial Lithovit liquid fertiliser is efficient and many farmers had requested for it.
The witness, Samuel Tsatsu Adigler, who was the Chief Technical Assistant at the Cocoa Health Extension Division (CHED) of COCOBOD in Assin Fosu in the Central Region between 2006 and 2015, and later a District Cocoa Officer, is before the court testifying on behalf of former COCOBOD Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Stephen Opuni, who is standing trial for causing GH₵217 million financial loss to the state.
The witness during his evidence-in-chief told the court that his office had distributed Lithovit liquid fertiliser to some farmers in February 2015 which they applied to their farms, and he was later posted to Adabokrom in the Western North Region in May 2015 as a District Cocoa Officer.
He said a field visit to some of the farms where the Lithovit was applied showed the cocoa trees had flashy leaves, produced a lot of flowers, cherelles, and pods, and the beneficiary farmers were all praising the fertiliser.
Evelyn Keelson, a Chief State Attorney, during her cross-examination of the witness challenged him about the non-existence of any document that speaks to the supposed efficacy of the Lithovit liquid fertiliser and the fact that the witness could not say anything about yields of cocoa in the season as a result of the application of the fertiliser.
She further pointed it out to him that there is no single document to point to any farmer agitation as a result of the decision by COCOBOD to suspend the supply of Lithovit liquid fertiliser to farmers as claimed by the witness.
The witness, in his response, said he was just a common District Cocoa Officer and therefore, did not have the capacity to write a report to his bosses.
“I am putting it to you that as a whole District Cocoa Officer you do not even have a single official report on the supposed agitations by your farmers either in Adabokrom or Assin Fosu on your return against the withdrawal of Lithovit liquid fertiliser. You have nothing official to show for that,” Mrs. Keelson queried.
“Who am I to write against a decision taken by my employer, therefore, a law-abiding employee as I am there was nothing I can report to,” Mr. Adigler responded.
Mrs. Keelson further put it to the witness that his testimony before the court on the supposed efficacy of Lithovit liquid fertiliser and the agitation of farmers for that fertiliser is not supported by the record at COCOBOD.
The witness said COCOBOD’s field visit report written by CHED management team acknowledged the efficacy of LithovIt liquid fertiliser and they admitted that farmers were showering praises on the chemical.
She put it to the witness that there is no report on the supposed efficacy of Lithovit liquid fertiliser by any particular CHED official and the witness said he had the chance to read a management team report at Adabokrom and therefore, believes that the report would be at the Head Office.
Mrs. Keelson subsequently asked the witness to tell the court who wrote the supposed report and Mr. Adigler said he could not tell which member of the team wrote the report.
Mrs. Keelson also suggested to the witness that he had no capacity to comment on the findings of the University of Ghana report on Lithovit liquid fertiliser because he is not a scientist.
“I am not a scientist to know the efficacy of a chemical. I can observe and see what is efficient or inefficient chemical,” the witness responded.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak