Seidu Agongo, sole proprietor of Agricult Ghana Limited has faced off with one of the scientists who supposedly played a leading role in the testing of Lithovit Foliar Fertiliser.

The scientist, Dr Emmanuel Osei-Twum, a lecturer at the University of Ghana, Department of Chemistry told the court yesterday that he indeed tested the product that was supplied Ghana Cocoa Board by Agricult Ghana Limited.

 The scientist also told the court presided over by Justice Clemence Honyenuga that the product was submitted to the Chemistry Department by the Economic Organised Crime Office (EOCO).

He also told the court yesterday that before conducting the test, he did not have any foreknowledge that the test was being carried to aid EOCO criminal investigations.

And, secondly, he participated in the conduct of the research which scored lithovit low marks in it chemical composition.

However, his earlier testimony changed that he had foreknowledge of the case before conducting the test.  

Cross-examination by Nutifafa Nutsukpui counsel for A1 holding Benson Nutsukpui brief:

Q. You told this court that yourself and Mr Donkor did write this report, you just testified, is that correct?

A. We prepared the report.

Q. When you say you prepared the report is that different from writing the report?

A. Yes.

Q. Please tell the honourable court what preparation of the report means?

A. We put together the data. We formatted the data the way we wanted it and prepared the data in a way the report should be written. 

Q. Sir, so who in fact wrote this report?

A. We have a Secretary in the department who do write reports for us.

Q. Sir, would you have had the opportunity to review the report that is written by the departmental Secretary you just referred to?

A. Yes

Q. Sir, did you in fact reviewed this report, in respect of which you have testified today?

A. Completely 

Q. So you stand by the contents of the said report?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. So, today is not the first time you became aware that your department on exactly why they needed the analysis done, that is correct?

A. Yes, today is not the first day.

Q. Kindly, show Dr Osei Twum,  the report in exhibit H, under the head background.  And read the very first paragraph to the honourable court?

A. Reading”…” 

Q. Now sir, you saw this paragraph before your department sent out this report, that is correct? 

A. That is correct 

Q. And, in fact the briefing provided by EOCO gave the scope of work, that is also true?

Q. I am not privy to that briefing.

Q. How was the scope of your work in respect of the sample delivered to you by EOCO determined?

A. EOCO submitted the scope from item A to M on page 2 of the report to the department. 

Q. And, in fact, EOCO also wanted the department to determined whether the substance they delivered was pesticide, fungicide or weedicides…

A. Correct

Q. EOCO also wanted the department to determined the application of that substance from nursery to yield. That is true?

A. That is true

Q. Sir, by necessity that aspect of the instructions in evaluating the substance that was handed, that EOCO delivered would have to be carried out practically in the field. That is correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now sir, the Chemistry Department didn’t carry out any field testing or application of the substance that EOCO had delivered to the department, am I correct?

A. That is correct. We did not provide any result to EOCO based on test. The only response we gave is in the conclusion, which stated that although the material is an identified to be lithovit, its application on cocoa farms from nursery to growth and yield stages remains experimental. Because there’s currently no evidence in literature for lithovit application on cocoa plants.

Q. Sir are you aware that apart from cocoa, Ghana Cocoa Board regulates other crops?

A. I am not.

Q. And, now sir from your experience,  when a client brings you a sample for analysis, they provides you instructions or they have basis for your work, that is correct?

A. That is correct

Q. And you see your department being one of the great repute, the report produced on your work in respect of the sample EOCO delivered does capture in details of specific instructions for a particular work you were to do?

A. That is true

Q. And sir, your report doesn’t state anywhere there was a subsequent or supplementary provided apart from those captured on page 2 of the report. That is correct

A. That is correct. The report did not state there were supplementary, they were not captured in the report. 

Q. Sir, again from your experience, the conclusions that you draw from your scientific research,  any report must necessarily must be based on the actual work that you have done, in which you are reporting, that is also correct?

A. That is also not correct. Because when you are writing a report it is based on the actual work, as well as what pertains in the literature. 

Q. Now sir, the literature review is also guided by the instructions that client has given you in respect of the work, that is also true?

A. That is true and that is what we did

Q. Now sir, the instructions that your department received for this work, did not mention anywhere application of the substance on cocoa. That is correct?

A. I cannot say this correct because if we’re to submit all the documentation, somewhere cocoa would have been mentioned but it is not in the report. It could have been in the document.

Q. Where you in any of those discussions with the Head of Department?

A. Firstly, when EOCO came, they met with us with the sample. They submitted the sample to the Head of Department and we were called to meet the EOCO officials. We did not have any discussions with them. It was just to take the sample. 

Judge: Case adjourned to October 27, 2020.