A report prepared on Lithovit Folia Frrtiliser by a university of Ghana Chemistry professor, Dr Emmanuel Osei-Twum, has been tempted with, court told.

According to the lawyer for the second accused person, Nutifafa Nutsikpu, the report has a handwriting, which is different from the ones that have been typed.

The author of the document was charged to explain how the handwriting got onto the report but denies any knowledge of such.

Dr Osei-Twum during cross-examination today at the court presided over by Justice Clemence Honyenuga, said even though he still stand by the report, however, has nothing to do with the said handwriting.

Nevertheless, the second accused person, Seidu Agongo, lawyer alleged that the said handwriting was to give the report some credibility.

Seidu Agongo and his company, Agricult Ghana limited together with former boss of Ghana Cocoa Board are facing the law on some 27 charges of financial misappropriation.

Continuation of cross examination of PW5

Q. Sir, how many of you Scientists worked on the sample that EOCO delivered to the Chemistry Department?

A. Two

Q. Who led the team?

A. Prof Augustine Kwame Donkor.

Q. Is Prof Donkor still at post? 

A. He is still at post. Unfortunately he is not well, so he couldn’t come. 

Q. What is your field of specialisation?

A. Chemistry

Q. In Chemistry, are you a General Researcher or have you specialised in a particular field or aspect of chemistry?

A. I have specialised in Analytical Chemistry. 

Q. How about Prof Donkor. Would you know his field of specialisation?

A. He is an Environmental Engineer and Analytical Chemist. 

Q. Sir, on the day that you claim that you were called to meet the officials of EOCO, who delivered the sample to the Department of Chemistry, is it your case that no discussion took place between you and the officials of EOCO?

A. We had a discussion and that was centered around the scope of the work. 

Q. So the officials of EOCO gave you the instructions for the work they wanted done. Is that correct?

A. That is correct

Q. You said you were appointed as a Visiting Scholar at the Chemistry Department. Does that not presuppose that you work or teach elsewhere?

A. That should be the case. When I joined University of Ghana as a Visiting Scholar, I would have come from another institution, however, I applied to be given a retirement contract and since I had not been with the University of Ghana. I was given the appointment of Visiting Scholar.

Q. Which university or institution did you teach immediately prior to your engagement by the University of Ghana?

A. Prior to coming to University of Ghana, I had been with King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia and from there, I joined the research unit of Saudi Basic Industries Corporation  

Q. You told this court on October 21, 2020 that you had prepared the sample with acid, before subjecting it to the Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy? 

A. That is correct 

Q. You did also in your report find that Lithovit reacts vigorously with acids and thus contact with acids should be avoided. That is correct? 

A. I think I should explain the preparation of the sample and applying it in the field. To analyse the sample, you dissolve it in acid and when you dissolve it in acid, that process drives off Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The CO2 comes from the carbonate. The Calcium or Magnesium stays in solution and the measurement is done on the elements, Calcium or Magnesium or any other metal that would be present in the solution. To distinguish that from application in the field, the material should deliver CO2 to the plant, so if the soil is acidic, CO2 will be driven off and will not get to the plant. 

Q. Sir, the question simply is that your report found that Lithovit reacts vigorously with acids and as a result contact with acid should be avoided. Is this true or not? 

A. My Lord, as I have tried to explain, it is true if being applied in the field but for analysis that is not true. 

Q. Did your report make these distinctions? 

A. Yes it does.

Q. Kindly show the witness exhibit H. Kindly go to page 7, the last paragraph, 4.1.9 under the head, Stability and Reactivity, and kindly read to the honourable court the very two first sentences? 

A. reading […Lithovit is basic fertiliser…it will react vigorously with acid…]

Q. Sir, this is your report. Is that correct? 

A. This is our report.

Q. After you prepared the sample delivered to you with acid, in what form did you test for the different constituents? 

A. The sample was analysed with the elements in aqueous solution. 

Q. But it is true that after you prepared the sample with acid, you baked that sample in an oven for 15 hours at 105 Degrees Celsius?

A. That is not true. My Lord, we are looking at two different things. If the Attorney for the 2nd and 3rd accused reads the report carefully, he would realise that the heating at 105 degrees Celsius for 15 hours was a different process than treating another aliquot of the sample. The heating was to drive off the water. No acid was added to that aliquot. 

Q. Please kindly hand him exhibit H. Turn to page 5, paragraph 4.1.2. Read the very first 3 lines of your own report. 

A. Reading  report […]

Q. If you go to page 4 of that very report, you identified the benefits of Lithovit. Is that correct? 

A. That’s correct

Q. Now Sir, among the benefits you have identified in this report, first and foremost is that it increases yields and improves quality and storage properties of the crop, especially when plants are under stress situations. Is that there in your report

A. It is in our report 

Q. Again Lithovit, according to your report, has the benefit of releasing the water requirement of the plant. Am I correct? 

A. That is correct

Q. Further, according to your report, Lithovit intensifies growth and green coloration of plants. Is this correct

A. This is correct

Q. And Sir, according to your report, Lithovit also enhances resistance to drought, frost, insects and pests, and fungal infection in plants?

A. Our report says it enhances plants resistance against and not to.

Q. Again, according to your report, Lithovit enhances the supply of essential micronutrients to plants?

A. That is correct 

Q. And, Lithovit, according to your report, also increases the metabolisation of magnesium in the formation of chlorophyll and the degree of photosynthesis in plants? 

A. My Lord, he has combined two items. The first item says gives a better comfort and metabolisation of calcium and magnesium …when mixed with amino acids as a source of nitrogen. Second item, it increases the metabolism in magnesium formation and also photosynthesis… 

Q. Now Sir, Lithovit that is not dilute should ordinarily have the benefits that you identified in your report? 

A. That is correct. 

Q. You told this court that EOCO delivered to the department a liquid substance that EOCO had already labelled Lithovit? 

A. That is correct 

Q. And, a while ago, you told the court also that the elements were tested in solution. Is that correct?

A. That is correct 

Q. If you turn to page 5 of your report, paragraph 4.1.1, per the physical properties, you will realise sir, that your report described the physical state of the substance you claimed to work on as powdery? 

A. The report states so.

Q. Did you carry out any toxicology examination of the liquid sample that EOCO had delivered to you?

A. No, we did not

Q. Kindly go to page 2 of your report, where the instructions for your work have been captured. By item k on page 2, were you not supposed to carry out any toxicological assessment of the sample?

A. Item k states toxicological information and that information was in the MSDS.

Q. Sir, so when you stated on page 8 of your report that “there is no toxicological report so far on Lithovit in the literature”, where did you get that from? 

A. That information was in the MSDS.

Q. Was it because of your inability to carry out the toxicological assessment of the actual sample you were working on, the reason why you, the Scientists, decided to reproduce what was in the MSDS? 

A. My Lord, as I stated on Wednesday, I am a Chemist, I am not a Toxicologist, therefore, that information was already available and I did not need to reinvent the wheel.

Q. The EOCO officials who brought in the sample and retained your services to analyse that sample could also read the MSDS? 

A. It is for EOCO officials to answer that question. I cannot speak for them.

Q. As part of your recommendations, you said that the nozzles of the Sprayers used in the application should be cleaned and rinsed after every application? 

A. Yes, and if the nozzle was not cleaned, that nozzle will get clogged.

Q. You made this recommendation because the Lithovit folia fertilizer had to be sprayed onto the foliage of the plant to which it was being applied?

A. That is correct.

Q. You had told this court that the sample you had analysed was very dilute. Is that the case?

A. That is the case

Q. Who diluted it?

A. My Lord, we are talking about the sample as it came. I don’t know whether it was diluted by EOCO or anybody else, but what we got was what we worked on.

Q. Where did EOCO get the sample they delivered to you?

A. My Lord, EOCO would be the right organisation to answer that question.

Q. What else was delivered to your Department with that liquid sample by EOCO?

A. When they brought the sample, it was not accompanied by any other item. 

Q. You relied on the label EOCO had placed on the sample, naming it Lithovit? 

A. The first day the sample arrived, we asked EOCO to provide us with a request stating the scope of work. And, that scope of work, is captured on page 2 of the report.

Q. Because you so relied on EOCO’S description, you did not carry out an independent assessment to determine the actual liquid substance that you were handed by EOCO?

A. That is not correct

Q. Was this gentleman A2 (Agongo), part of the EOCO team that brought in the sample?

A. Never met him and he was not part of the EOCO team.

Q. When did you obtain the MSDS and at what stage of your work? 

A. We had started the work, we had determined the dry constituent of the sample and we had started doing the digestion, so this would be four days afterwards.

Q. Who did you obtain the MSDS from? 

A. EOCO provided us with the MSDS.

Q. What particular type of Lithovit did you think you were working on? 

A. I wouldn’t know. We were asked to determine the composition. 

Q. How did you know that the MSDS that you were handed by EOCO actually related to the substance you were working on? 

A. The MSDS provided us with the constituents and our analysis showed that the sample had the same constituents, but at very reduced concentrations.

Q. In your report you identified various types of Lithovit? 

A. That is correct.

Q. And, all of these have different types of constituents?

A. There are two groups. The first group will contain about the same constituents. The second group, one of them contains urea, and the other was NPK (Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium).

Q. You are not suggesting that the Lithovit organic fertilizers in the first group you identified, that all those fertilizers have the same constituents and the same values?

A. No, I am not.

Q. So, therefore, those individual products have their own MSDS. That is true? 

A. I cannot tell at this point because EOCO just stated Lithovit. 

Q. Because you had the MSDS after you had written this report, someone used ink to give your work some credibility by writing the supposed values from the MSDS on the right side of the table you had drawn?

A. My Lord, if somebody did, we did not do it.

Q. Can you see to the right side of table 2 on page 6 of your report that someone had written in hand Safety Data Sheet at the top and supposed values from that Safety Data Sheet underneath that column in ink. Can you see? 

A. Yes I can see that.

Q. And, according to you, you did not do the writing in ink. Did you? 

A. No, we did not. We have nothing to do with the vertical line to the topmost right corner of the table. We did not write those in ink. We did not put in those vertical lines. Our original report did not have those 

Q. Even though you did not test for Silicon Dioxide, you will note that curiously the person who did the alterations to your report indicated underneath the table the chemical symbol for Silicon Dioxide and provided a value against it. That is correct?

A. My Lord, we did not do it.

Q. Does that appear in the report you are holding now?

A. It does appear in the report I am holding, but as I said, we don’t know anything about it, and if the MSDS has been tendered as evidence, you will notice that the numbers are correct. The only mistake made by whoever wrote it, swapped the values for Calcium Carbonate and Magnesium Carbonate (CaCO3 and MgCO3).

Q. When you say the values are right, but you in fact, never tested that sample for Silicon Dioxide, are you being truthful? 

A. We are being very truthful. 

Q. So in your experience, is it credible work to ascribe constituents and values that you never tested for, is that credible work? 

A. My Lord, we did not test for Silicon or Silicon Dioxide. As our original report stands, it is very credible. 

Q. Show him exhibit A3. You will note from paragraph 4.1.1. the heading: Physical Properties. Your report identified the substance as powdery and grey in colour?

A. That is correct

Q. When you look on the MSDS, that is exhibit A1 under physical properties, you will see the same thing there. That is true?

A. Yes, we see the same thing there but he’s looking at only two items from our report. 

Q. Your report from paragraph 4.1.2. has the heading; Identification of substance and chemical composition. When you look at exhibit A1, thus paragraph one and two, you have combined in your report?

A. That is correct 

Q. Your paragraph 4.1.3. Is headed: Hazardous Identification and when you look at paragraph 3 of exhibit A1 it is the same heading? 

A. Yes. It is true, but we are following the scope of work in the request from EOCO. Line item c on page 2 of our report…

Q. When you look at paragraph 4.1.4. of your report, it is headed: First Aid Measures.. When you go to exhibit A2, paragraph 4, you will see exactly the same heading there? 

A. It is true… We were using the headings from the request from EOCO.

Q. I take it that, that request from EOCO was in writing?

A. That is correct.

Q. Do you have a copy? 

A. We have a copy and that request is captured on page ** of our report in exhibit H?

Q. Who signed the report?

A. I do not remember 

Q. The values provided in the MSDS are not absolute. There are acceptable ranges. Is that correct? 

A. That is correct and if one takes for instance CaCO3, it ranges from 79% to 85%.

Q. But that is not indicated in your report. Is it?

A. My Lord, we were not reporting the values from the MSDS, we reported our results. 

Q. Handling and storage, how did you assess that with the sample EOCO brought to you? 

A. As is stated in the report, Lithovit is said to be powdery and, therefore, dust creation must be avoided. 

Q. The sample you tested was liquid and you keep saying they said Lithovit is powdery. Who told you?

A. I kept saying “it is said”. I didn’t say they say

Q. You see, if this your report was in fact a report the substance EOCO brought to you, you would have been reporting on a liquid and not powder? 

A. That is true and the results we got from our testing is what we have in the report.

Q. All you did was to reproduce the content of the MSDS, had it signed and claimed that you had done an independent analysis of the substance that EOCO had delivered to you? 

A. The results in table 2 page 6 of our report in exhibit H were the results we obtained from our analysis. That is the critical part of this report. I said earlier that we were not going to reinvent the wheel. The critical part of this whole report is table 2. And that table that we supplied did not have the handwriting on that page 6.

Q. How many publications do you have on fertilizers in your work? 

A. I am not an expert in fertilizer chemistry. I am an Analytical Chemist and my work covers a broad range of samples so I don’t claim to be an expert in fertilizers. 

Q. Fertilizer chemistry is a speciality in the field of chemistry and persons practice that?

A. My lord, that is not correct. There is no field in chemistry called fertilizer chemistry.

Q. So when you just said “my lord I am not an expert in fertilizer chemistry” you misled this honourable court? 

A. My lord, I am misleading the court.

Q. I am putting it to you that there is a field of specialty in fertilizers in chemistry?

A. My lord, if there is any field of fertilizers then it will be in crop science, not in chemistry.

Q. Do we have a field in chemistry in material sciences?

A. No. Material science is in engineering. 

Q. How many publications does Prof Donkor have in fertilisers?

A. He’s not here. I cannot answer that question for him.

Q.  Both of you who you claim carried out the analysis on this sample do not in the greatest respect  know what you were looking for? 

A. We knew exactly what we were looking for.

Q. That is why of a 10 paged report you will copy and reproduce content of the MSDS on 5 out of those 10 pages. I am putting it to you?

A. That is not correct. If you go to page 9 of our report, references, we got a number of info from the literature and as I said we were not going to reinvent the wheel?

Q. You did not do the work you were entrusted by EOCO. You cut corners based on your answer immediately above. I put that to you?

A. We did not cut corners. In fact the request says we were to examine so we weren’t only going to do these tests.