Principal State Attorney (PSA) Stella Ohene Appiah has castigated the defence counsels for Stephen Kwabena Opuni former Chief Executive of COCOBOD and Seidu Agongo and his company Agricult Ghana Limited, for not asking relevant questions first in the ongoing GH¢271 million cocoa fertiliser trial.

Mrs. Appiah descended heavily on the defence teams when they expressed shock to her submission on the orders of the trial court of how long cross-examination was to be conducted by counsel for the Republic and first accused (A1), Dr Opuni.

The counsels on the other side, Samuel Codjoe and Benson Nutsukpui, interjected and inquired from PSA Stella how long she haa practiced and whether she is the one to teach them how to conduct their case.

PSA Stella replied that years does not matter and continued to make her submission in support of the court’s decision of allotting four hours each to parties to cross examine.

PSA Stella said that the court had been fair to the defence side, given that Counsel for 2nd and 3rd accused persons by the record should have ended his evidence in chief last Wednesday which was 22nd May 2024, but the Court magnanimously granted him an hour extension to conclude his evidence in chief.

She added that the court a duty to exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence before the Court.

Mr. Nutsukpui, counsel for Seidu Agongo and his company, has it put on record that he was is compelled by the court to cut short his evidence in chief with Reverend Father Dr Emmanuel Okpoti Oddoye, a retired scientist from CRIG.He said: “Let the records reflect, while I was leading my evidence in chief, the honourable court stopped me and I was bound to comply.

And I made it clear to the court that I have not completed my evidence in chief.

“A2&A3 counsel indicated that the nuances of the case is making the defence very worried, as it appears that they are not being heard and only being pushed through the motion.

Hitherto, it was important that defence have confidence in the process and not otherwise. Mr Codjoe contented that Accra High Court presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, gave the order without giving him the opportunity to ask his first question.

He then drew the court attention to Article Article 19(2)(e) on fair trial, for which the accused should be given adequate resources to defend his case.

According to him, the court, which is differently constituted and proceedings adopted, will note that nowhere in the proceedings was the prosecution limited by time.

A1’s counsel argued that the court ought to afford them the same facilities as the prosecution, particularly when the trial is of a criminal nature and if the accused are found guilty, they will suffer harsh punishment, including limitations of their liberties.

It is Mr Codjoe’s case that the four hours allotted time is inadequate.

How Dr Alfred Arthur’s suspension was Rev. Fr. Dr. Oddeyo informed the court that he was instructed by Dr Yaw Adu-Ampomah, Deputy Chief Executive of Agronomy and Qualify Control (A&QC) to reinstate Dr Alfred Arthur, despite the latter being put on suspension for misconduct.

He said the instruction, which he earlier said was an advice, was given to him on phone by Dr Yaw Adu-Ampomah.

Rev. Fr. Dr. Oddeyo, fourth defence witness (DW4) of A2&A3, blamed the incident on the change of government, “We were directed to ask Dr. Alfred Arthur to resume work at the Soil Science Division and not at Bunso Sub-station.

“After the change of government in 2016, the Dr Gilbert Anim Kwapong who was the Executive Director of CRIG (Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana) was transferred to COCOBOD head office and replaced by Dr Franklin Manu Amoah.

DW4 told the court that Dr Alfred Arthur, second Prosecution Witness (PW2), was suspended for having received Cocoa Nti fertiliser from Enapa Ventures with the knowledge of COCOBOD and CRIG.

He concurred when it was suggested to him, these three individuals, Dr. Amoah, Dr. Arthur and Dr Adu-Ampomah became key witnesses of the prosecution in the trial of Dr Opuni, Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited.

Cross-examination

Q: We were on the committee that you chaired at CRIG to investigate the testing of Cocoa Nti Fertilizer by Enapa. Do you remember that? A: I do remember.

Q: Please take Exhibit 18 and you have attached to the forwarding letter the report of the adhoc Committee. That is correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: If you turn to page 4 of that report, the number 4, your committee made recommendations that it would be “appropriate measures to forestall any future occurrences”. Do you see that there?

A: I do.

Q: If you turn to the next page, what is the second recommendation that your committee made to forestall any future occurrence?

A: Recommendation number 2, “the CTCM will need to be reorganised to make it more effective. They should put together a document to clearly spell out the steps to be followed in testing chemicals and machines. In this regard they will need to consult the Institute’s Biometrician to make sure that the field experiments are properly laid out and analysed”.

Q: What occasioned the thinking of the committee that “the CTCM would need to be reorganised to become more effective?”

A: The circumstances surrounding the receipt of Cocoa Nti fertilizer by Dr. Arthur and other evidence that the committee heard during their sittings made them come up with such a recommendation.

Q: You chaired that committee?

A: I did.Q: Is there any reason why is not “us” but “them”? A: As counsel has pointed out I chaired the committee so the word “us” rather than “them” would be more appropriate.

Q: That same 2 the second point that is “they should put together a document to clearly spell out the steps to be followed in testing chemicals and machines”. What may have occasioned the thinking behind this statement?

A: As at the time of the investigation the CTCM did not have such a document.

Q: What is that recommendation supposed to correct?

A: The recommendation suggests that the CTCM should have a book or a combine methodology that every scientist will follow and be guided by.

Q: Why was there the need for that book with combined methodology, which must be followed by every scientist when testing chemicals and machines?

A: As at that time the methodology used even for the same class of chemicals for example fertilizers were found to differ.

Q: If you would explain what you just said in more simpler terms?

A: In the particular case of fertilizers some samples require just a laboratory analysis whereas others require a field test in addition.

Q: Ultimately what will that recommendation of putting together the document spelling out the methodology do to the testing of chemicals and machines?

A: The document would ensure that all chemicals and machines go through a standardized test.Q: Have you ever heard of the word “uniform”? A: I had.

Q: Do they have any relevance to the recommendation?

A: To have standardized testing would also mean uniformity of testing.

Q: What is the date on that document?

A: The document itself does not have a date but the covering letter is dated 6th November 2016.

Q: Prior to the 6th November 2016, what you recommended and the explanation you just given in Court was that operational at CRIG?

A: No.

Q: Please read your third appropriate measure to the Court!

A: “The CTCM will have to designate a trained person to receive these chemicals and machines noting the condition at the time of receipt. This will include missing parts, torn bags etc.”

Q: Kindly tell this Court what occasioned the thinking in respect of this appropriate measure? A: The investigation discovered that chemicals and machines had sometimes arrived at CRIG in torn sample bags with parts missing and without the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

Q: Indeed, Dr. Alfred Arthur in his answers to questions in that committee told the committee that there was no laid down procedure for receiving chemicals and machines by the scientist. Page 18 of your report. Have you seen it?

A: Yes.

Q: He did?

A: In Dr. Alfred Arthur’s submission he points out that initially samples were coming directly to CRIG without recourse to Cocobod. In the same submission however he points out that later in 2014 scientists had been informed that all requests for testing of chemicals must come from COCOBOD.

Q: If you go back to appropriate measure two, what was your committee trying to correct?

A: The committee was recommending that appropriate guidelines be put in place to ensure that all chemicals and machines come to CRIG through Cocobod with the requisite documentation.

Q: What was the appropriate measure five of the committee?

A: “The report on any chemical or machine should include one page executive summary highlighting the results and conclusions and also a page in which details of the dates on which the chemical/ machine was received for testing and a chronology of subsequent activity involve in testing the chemical/ machine. A copy of the letter forwarding the chemical/ machine to CRIG should also be included”.

Q: Also a page in which details of the dates on which the chemical/ machine was received for testing and a chronology of subsequent activity involve in testing the chemical/ machine. What occasioned that appropriate measure?

A: Investigation reveal that an unnamed fertilizer had been received by Dr. Arthur in 2013 without any official documentation.

Q: What informed that second part of the recommendation that it must include a page on which the chemical was received and a page indicating the activities that were followed in the testing of the chemical or machine?

A: The committee realised that it would be necessary for the CTCM to know when the chemical or machine arrived and also that it had gone through the required testing during a time period that had been specified.

Q: Prior to the 6th November 2016 when this report was sent to COCOBOD, scientists at CRIG were writing report.?

A: Yes.

Q: Those reports that the scientists were writing reports, were they in accordance with the committee’s proposed format or different?

A: They were different.

Q: What would the new format bring out which was not in existent before?

A: The proposed format would ensure that a report on the testing of any chemical or machine would fit a standardized format.

Q: At the end of the investigation and the report to COCOBOD, the investigation under reference in Exhibit 18 and it forwarding to COCOBOD, your committee on page 6, recommendation 2 towards the last part made recommendations on the appropriate measures to be taken against the scientists?

A: That is correct.

Q: What was the recommendations?

A: The committee recommended that being a first time offender, Dr. Arthur should be given a strongly worded warning letter.

Q: What was the recommended punishment from Cocobod to Dr. Alfred Arthur?

A: I can remember for a fact that he was transferred from the Head Office Akyem Tafo to CRIG substation at Bunso. I suspect he may have been suspended as well but I am not sure.Q: This was in which year?

A: 2014.

Q: You wrote and signed Exhibit 14?

A: That is correct.

Q: Is dated 22nd March 2017?

A: That is correct.

Q: What is the content of that letter?

A: In the letter I requested Dr. Arthur to resume work at the Soil Science Division after the expiration of his suspension.

Q: You referred to his suspension letter dated 20th December 2016?

A: That is so.

Q: How did you come to write this letter?

A: There were general elections in this country in December 2016 as a result of which the governance of the country changed. We were directed to ask Dr. Alfred Arthur to resume work at the Soil Science Division and not at Bunso Sub-station.

Q: Who directed you?

A: We were directed by DCE, Agronomy and Quality Control, COCOBOD.

Q: And who in person was the occupant in that position of 22nd March 2017?

A: The occupant of that position was Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah.

Q: You said Soil Science Division at where?

A: Soil Science Division is at Akyem Tafo.

Q: This Exhibit 14 where was it initiated from Tafo or COCOBOD.

A: Exhibit 14 was written at CRIG but on the advice on the then DCE, Agronomy and Quality Control, Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah.

Q: What is the difference between advice and instructions?

A: There is a very thin line but normally I would understand advice as a conversation including telephone calls in which certain actions are suggested but when it comes to instructions usually they are put on paper for avoidance of doubt.

Q: In the case of advice, do you have the option to say yes or no?

A: Yes. Usually it is a discussion or a bunter so if you have alternate views you would usually proffer them and explain why.

Q: In writing Exhibit 14, kindly tell this Court if you had an option to say no, Dr. Alfred Arthur should remain at Bunso or not?

A: I was not given an option.

Q: Do you still consider it as an advice, if you did not have an option?

A: Considering the way counsel has put it, I think it was an instruction. May I also say that at the time my immediate superior the then Executive Director, Cocoa Research Dr. Anim Kwapong had also been transferred to Cocobod, Accra and Dr. Amoah had become Executive Director in his place.

BY COURT: End for evidence in chief of DW4/A2 AND A3 … and having considered evidence adduced …….COUNSEL FOR 2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED: My Lord, let the records reflect that whilst I was leading my evidence in chief, the Court stopped me from leading the evidence in chief but I was bound to comply but I made it clear that I have not finish the evidence in chief.

COUNSEL FOR 1ST ACCUSED: I refer to your order that you are giving us four hours to cross-examining this witness who is a very crucial witness without even hearing counsel ask the first question. I wish to draw your lordship’s attention to constitutional provision that is article 19(2)(e) on fair trial which states we would be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation. Article 19(2)(g) of the constitution (counsel reads). If you adopted proceedings in this Court as you did, then your Lordship would have adopted all orders made by the previous judge and nowhere were the prosecution limited with respect to time to examine by the witnesses. It is our submission that by limiting us to four hours irrespective of what will happen in Court, it is as if the Court is going to the rituals of the trial and we would reiterate that this being a criminal trial for which accused if found guilty will suffer one of the harshest punishment. Four hours to cross-examine a very important witness like this is inadequate and sins against our right to fair trial. We pray that you review this order which is against the principle of fair trial.

COUNSEL FOR 2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED: The history, nature and nuance of this case make us worry when it appears that we are not being heard but only being push through the motion. It is important for accused persons to be confident that they are being tried and not only push through the motion.

COUNSEL FOR REPUBLIC: Respectfully, it is the duty of the Court to exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence before the Court.

Section 69 of the Evidence Act gives the Court that authority. Counsel for 2nd and 3rd accused persons by the record should have ended his evidence in chief last Wednesday which was 22nd May 2024.

The Court magnanimously granted him an hour extension for him to conclude this evidence in chief today. He had exceeded the one hour grace period given to him by the Court.

The Court has every right in bring counsel’s examination in chief to an end after reminding him of exceeding his allotted times on two occasions.

BY COURT: Indeed, this Court has always given adequate and sufficient time and facilities to the parties to put their case across at all times and had not in any way acted contrary to that. This Court has duly complied with section 69 of Evidence Act (NRCD 323) and not just by taking the parties through the motion.

The four hours of cross-examination given to the 1st accused and the prosecution will remain until the Court otherwise direct.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DW4/A2 AND A3 BY COUNSEL FOR 1ST ACCUSED

Q: You have in your hands Exhibit 42 which is your letter of the 10th March 2017 which has as the attachment the laboratory testing of ammonium sulphate fertilizer. This is the scientific report on the testing of ammonium sulphate fertilizer by CRIG?

A: Yes, that is so.Q: What this report states is that it compares the earlier test of various fertilizers which have the same chemical component as this ammonium sulphate fertilizer and concludes that this fertilizer is effective for use on cocoa?

A: The test confirms that the test material is ammonium sulphate but it stop short of indicating the suitability for cocoa. This test does not say so.

Q: But the report does not state that ammonium sulphate fertilizer is not suitable for cocoa? A: That is correct.Q: In fact, Cocobod purchased this fertilizer from Plantco in 2017?

A: CRIG is only concern with testing whether Cocobod bought it or not I will not be in a position to know.

Q: Please have a look at Exhibit 41 and attached to this Exhibit 41 is your letter dated 19th May 2017 which has attached to it the scientific report on verification Omni Cocoa Aduane Fertilizer?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: In the report which is on the next page of Exhibit 41, it states that this fertilizer that is Omni Cocoa Aduane fertilizer was submitted by Omnifert Ltd. to CRIG on the 16th February 2017 for laboratory verification of nutrient content. That is the case?

A: That is the case.

Q: And this scientific verification report was authored by A. Quaye, Dr. Alfred Arthur and A. J. Dogbatse?

A: That is the case.

Q: From the report the only test which was done by CRIG was a laboratory verification of the nutrient content of this fertilizer (Cocoa Aduane). That is it?

A: The subject of the report is the laboratory confirmation of the fertilizer but CRIG had done some field tests prior to that not at CRIG as it is usually done at CRIG but elsewhere in collaboration with other agencies.

Q: What CRIG did by way of testing the efficacy of this fertilizer was to test the laboratory verification of the nutrient content on its own. That is the case?

A: It is a little complicated. I am trying to explain that based on the last page of the Exhibit 41, the initial field trials had taken place and so in this particular case scientists decided to verify that the sample they were testing was the same as the one previously used in the field.

Q: I am putting it to you that what the CRIG scientists confirmed and which is contained on the last page of Exhibit 41 is to the effect that an identical fertilizer and if I read from the first line. (read). What I have just read to you from the scientific report, the test which was done by the IFDC and CRIG with technical support of Cocoa Abrabo Association and Ministry of Agriculture is not in respect of this Cocoa Aduane fertilizer but other fertilizers which had similar characteristics as this Cocoa Aduane Fertilizer. That is so?

A: That is so. The last page does not make specific mention of Cocoa Aduane.

Q: In fact, this test the scientist talked about took place between 2009 and 2012 at the time Cocoa Aduane Fertilizer by Omnifert Ltd had not been submitted to CRIG for testing?

A: That is so.

Q: What happened is that five years after the test had been completed for some fertilizers by CRIG, MOFA, IFDC with technical support of Cocoa Abrabo Association, Cocoa Aduane Granular fertilizer which claimed to have similar characteristics as these other fertilizers for which field test had been conducted and completed five years ago was submitted to COCOBOD for testing as an effective fertilizer for cocoa. That is what the report from CRIG states. Is that not so?

A: Yes, that is so.

Q: When this fertilizer was sent for testing to CRIG by Cocobod, it was a decision of the scientists as contained in their scientific report that to conduct a test on this fertilizer by conducting a laboratory test only for less than three months. Is that not so as from the report, this fertilizer was received by CRIG on the 16th February 2017?

A: That is so.

Q: You can confirm that from this report CRIG did not conduct a field testing of Omni Cocoa Aduane Fertilizer but only a laboratory for three months. That is so?

A: That is correct.

Q: The recommendation of CRIG is that the nutrient content of the fertilizer is similar to the earlier tested fertilizers five years ago and it therefore recommended Omni Cocoa Aduane as good for use on matured cocoa. That is so?

A: That is so.

Q: The authors of this report include Dr. Alfred Arthur (PW2). That is so?

A: That is correct.

Q: The Deputy Chief Executive, Agronomy and Quality Control of Cocobod at the time this report was accepted by Cocobod was Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah (PW3). Is that not so?

A: That is correct.

Q: The Executive Director of CRIG at the time this scientific report was prepared and accepted by CRIG and forwarded to Cocobod was Dr. Franklin Manu Amoah (PW1). That is so?

A: That is correct.

Q: Both Dr. Franklin Amoah (PW1), Dr. Alfred Arthur (PW2) and Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah (PW3) all accept that laboratory testing for fertilizer for three months alone without a field test of the fertilizer is enough if the test confirms the existence of nutrients that are known as effective for cocoa?

A: That is correct.

Q: This scientific report which concluded that the laboratory test of known nutrient in fertilizers which led to the recommendation of Omni Cocoa Aduane as an effective fertilizer took place before the 19th May 2017. Is that not it?

A: That is correct.

Q: In coming to the decision on recommending the use of Omni Cocoa Aduane Fertilizer as an effective fertilizer on matured cocoa, the authors of the scientific report including Dr. Alfred Arthur accepted the views and or made references to publication by A. A. Afrifa as you can see from the report. Is that not so?

A: That is so.

Q: The report of A. A. Afrifa which was co-authored amongst other persons including Dr. Alfred Arthur concerns nutrients properties in soils and fertilizers?

A: The subject of the papers have been generalised but basically that is so.

Q: You would agree with me as at the second coming of Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah in 2017 Cocobod and CRIG’s position in respect of testing of fertilizer is that the field test of fertilizers is not mandatory and provided the laboratory test alone confirms the existence of the nutrients the fertilizer can be recommended for use on matured cocoa?

A: That is so.

Q: With Omni Cocoa Aduane Fertilizer there was no nursery test of this fertilizer even though CRIG recommended based on the three months laboratory test alone that this fertilizer was effective for use on matured cocoa. Is that not so?

A: That is correct.

Q: Again, this report was signed by you for and on behalf of your then Executive Director of CRIG, Dr. Franklin Amoah (PW1) and with his knowledge and agreement. That is it?

A: That is so.

Q: Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah (PW3) accepted these findings as to the effectiveness of Omni Cocoa Aduane Fertilizer with the full knowledge that this fertilizer was tested in the laboratory for three months. That is so?

A: That is correct.

Q: You are aware that Omni Cocoa Aduane Fertilizer is being used by COCOBOD who have purchased this fertilizer for use by cocoa farmers.

A: It may have been procured but as I have stated earlier procurement of fertilizer is not part of CRIG duties.

Q: When you were in CRIG or during your time in Cocobod you got to know about an investigation which was chaired by Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah on the testing of fertilizers and you can confirm from page 3?

A: I did hear of the committee.

Q: You can further confirm that as at the time the committee started sitting between October and November 2017, Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah had received your letter of the 19th day of May 2017 forwarding the scientific report of the effectiveness of Omni Cocoa Aduane Fertilizer on matured cocoa?

A: Based on the date that should be so.

Q: You can also confirm that before the committee sat Dr. Alfred Arthur (PW2) had in the scientific report in respect of Omni Cocoa Aduane Fertilizer recommended same for use on matured cocoa by dispensing with any other trial namely either a nursery or a field trial on matured cocoa by analysing the chemical nutrients for three months in a laboratory test?

A: That is what the report, the lead author of which is A. K. Quaye says. A. K. Quaye was a lead author though Dr. Alfred Arthur participated in it.

Q: You can further confirm that PW1, that is Dr. Franklin Amoah as at the date of the sitting of the committee i.e. in October, November 2017 had in May 2017 accepted the fact that field trials of fertilizers and or nursery trials of fertilizer on cocoa was not a necessity before recommending its effectiveness on matured cocoa?

A: That is correct.