Dr Stephen Opuni
Dr. Emmanuel Yaw Osei-Twum, an Associate Professor at the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana, has defended a report by the department on a liquid Lithovit fertilizer which is the subject matter of the ongoing trial of former COCOBOD Chief Executive Dr. Stephen Opuni and businessman Seidu Agongo.
The report which is the result of an analysis on the fertilizer had described the liquid Lithovit fertilizer as ‘very, very dilute’ as all the parameters—components in the liquid fertilizer that was tested were all ‘very low.’
But Nutifafa Nutsukpui, counsel for Seidu Agongo, while cross-examining Dr. Osei-Twum, who is the fifth prosecution witness, questioned the credibility of the report stating that the witness, together with Prof. Augustine Kwame Donkor, who conducted the analysis, did not know what they were looking for.
However, Dr. Osei-Twum told the court that they knew exactly what they were looking for in their analysis as captured in the report.
Evidence
Dr. Osei-Twum led in his evidence-in-chief by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) explained how the test result revealed some very sharp contradiction in the nutrient content of the Lithovit fertilizer as stated by the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) that accompanied it and those found in the liquid Lithovit that was tested by the Chemistry Department.
He told the court that all the parameters—components in the liquid fertilizer that was tested were all very low.
The witness also told the court that based on the test result, they concluded that “Lithovit is a nano-fertilizer and this is used as an alternative to conventional fertilizers. It is used on vegetables, citrus, cotton, and rice farms.”
He said this led the department to recommend that “the Lithovit found in the sample we tested was very small and that it might compromise the outcome of its application.”
Cross-Examination
During his cross-examination, Mr. Nutsukpui put it to Dr. Osei-Twum that they did not do any analysis, claiming that they only reproduced the content of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), signed it and claimed they had done an independent analysis of the substance EOCO had delivered to them.
Dr. Osei-Twum refuted that allegation and stated that the result from their test was captured on ‘Table 2’ of the report and that was the most critical part of the report.
“The results on ‘Table 2’ of the report were the results we gained from our analysis. That is the critical part of this report. I said earlier that we are not going to reinvent the wheel.”
The lawyer also put it to the witness that the chemists who conducted the analysis did not know what they were looking for, stressing “that is why in a 10-page report you copied and reproduced contents of the MSDS on 5 out of those 10 pages. I am putting it to you.”
But Dr. Osei-Twum refuted that claim as well, stating that “My Lord, we knew exactly what we were looking for… If you go to page 9 of our report, we got a number of information from the literature and as I said we were not going to reinvent the wheels. If we had done those tests to reinvent the wheel, I am sure we would still be doing those tests and this report would not be out.”
This led the lawyer to accuse Dr. Osei-Twum of ‘cutting corners’ in their analysis on the fertilizer entrusted to them by the Economic and Organised Crime Unit but the witness debunked that claim and told the court that “we did not cut corners. In fact, the request said we were to examine and that included literature review as well as tests”.
There was a back and forth about something that was written in ink appearing on the report and the witness indicated that although he did not do so, a careful look at the inscription shows that the figures correspond with the MSDS that accompanied the fertilizer.
Trial
Dr. Opuni and Seidu Agongo are before an Accra High Court for causing financial loss to the state to the tune of GH₵217,370,289.22.
The two are facing a total of 27 charges, including defrauding by false pretense, willfully causing financial loss to the state, money laundering, corruption by a public officer and contravention of the Public Procurement Act.
The next prosecution witness is expected to testify today.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak