The following are excerpts of the cross-examination:

DW1 remaindered of his former oath.

B/C: On March 29, 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed the application by the second accused person, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction to quash the orders made by this court on December 16, 2021, and ruled that I consider the process trial in this matter for the application. “We are of the opinion that the trial judge didn’t exceed his … he proceed to make consequently orders sought to be quashed. We find no merit in this application and we proceed to dismiss same accordingly.” So with this ruling, the case shall proceed.

Continuation of cross-examination

Q. Now Exhibit N is a typical letter Cocobod will send to PPA seeking approval to sole source that is correct?

A. Yes

Q. Please take a look at Exhibits 76, 77, 78,79, 80 & Exhibit S. Sir these exhibits though addressed to different companies were written on the same day 25/02/2013?

A. That is correct 

Q. Please also confirm to the court that the companies which Exhibits 76,77, 78, 79, 80 & S were the same companies listed in Exhibit N, as the suppliers of the products in respect of the Cocoa board seeking PPA approval of Exhibit N?

A. Yes

Q. Sir please take a look at Exhibit T and confirm to the honourable that is the third accused response to Exhibit S?

A. Yes my lord it is the response.

Q. Please take a look at Exhibits 81 & 85, which are letters from Sidaco Ltd and confirm to the honourable court that those are in response to Exhibits 78 & 79?

A. My lord Exhibit 81 is a response to Exhibit 78, and Exhibit 85 is a response to Exhibit 72.

Q. Kindly take a look at Louis Dreyfus and confirm that it is a response to the COCOBOD letter, Exhibit 77?

A. Yes. Exhibit 88 is a response to Exhibit 77.

Q. Kindly also take a look at Exhibit 83, which is from Wieiko and confirm it is a response to Exhibit 76?

A. Yes my lord, Exhibit 83 is a response to Exhibit 76.

Q. Please also take a look at Exhibit 74 from Chemico Ltd and confirm that it is a response from the COCOBOD letter to Exhibit 80?

A. Yes Exhibit 84 is the response to Exhibit 80.

Q. Sir in seeking PPA approval to sole source, COCOBOD only needed to indicate the price or the cost at which it was seeking to purchase a particular product as it is contained in Exhibit N. That is correct?

A. Yes

Q. COCOBOD didn’t need to state the delivery period, the delivery site or the terms of payment in the letter to PPA seeking the approval that is also correct?

A. Yes

Q. Sir Exhibits S, 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80, which were letters from COCOBOD were all written after the date of Exhibit N. That is correct?

A. Yes

Q. So in effect, also Exhibits T, 81, 82, 83, 84 & 85, which were responses to the COCOBOD letter on 25/02/2014 were also written and received by COCOBOD after the date of Exhibit N?

A. That is correct

Q. So in effect, COCOBOD wrote to PPA, which per Exhibit N with information on the prices of the products it was seeking approval for before writing to the companies as per exhibits S, 76, 77, 78, 79, & 80. That is correct?

A. No my lord. It is not correct.

Q. Sir, what is the date of Exhibit N?

A. It is dated 19/02/2014.

Q. And that is the letter COCOBOD sent a letter to PPA to the sole source?

A. Yes

Q. What is the date on Exhibits S, 76, 77, 77, 78, 79 & 80?

A. The dates …/02/14. As I explained in my earlier submissions in Exhibit N. People who were copied below the list of distribution, the last on the list is the Procurement Manager and above the procurement manager, is the National Project Coordinator, CODAPEC/HITECH. At the time of exhibit N, COCOBOD had a technical unit, called CODAPEC HITECH unit. This unit was reporting directly to the Deputy Chief Executive (A&QC). CODAPEC HITECH unit was the link to the agrochemical suppliers. They obtain price quotations from the suppliers. They also advise management on the quantities and types of fertilizers to be procured. So they give these inputs, that is the name of the company, the type of fertilizer, the unit price, and the quantity that would be required for a particular operational year. This input from CODAPEC/HITECH, is taken over by the procurement unit. So with that, Procurement writes to PPA but the letter will be signed by CE. That is why within this letter we have the procurement manager writing, giving CODAPEC/HITECH a copy. PPA gives approval to this letter that is ex N, procurement needs to prepare notification of contract award

Q. Sir, is it the case that COCOBOD depended on this information obtained by CODAPEC/HITECH unit in written ex N to the PPA?

A. Yes, my lord

Q. So after Exhibit N, and in preparation for the issuance of notification of contracts award, COCOBOD then writes ex S, 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80 to the suppliers listed in Exhibit N is that the case?

A. Yes my lord, certainly so. If I add. When you look at these exhibits, exhibits S, 78, 77, 78, 79 & 80, they have all got a headline, “request for quotation”. The letter, much as it asks for a quotation further requested more information, which includes one delivery period, delivery site, three, terms of payment. This information is not needed for PPA approval. This is required for the preparation of notification of contracts award. Furthermore, because this has nothing to do with CODAPEC/HITECH unit they were not copied with these letters. And I want to add that responses to these letters were the ones that were used for the preparation for the notification for the contract and further responses to the notification to contract documents.

Q. On 6/12/21 you told this court that the prosecution’s position that Exhibit T, which is the third accused response to Exhibit S, was written by the third accused in breach of the PPA because it was dated after Exhibit N was not the correct position. Is that correct?

A. Yes 

Q. Sir if we follow the prosecution’s position that Exhibit T has been written in breach of PPA law then Exhibits 81,82,83, 84 & 85 which were responses from Sidaco, Wienco, Chemico, and Louis Dreyfus must also necessarily or logically be in breach of the PPA? That is correct

A. Yes

Q. Now sir, are you aware or have you heard of any case brought against Wienco for writing Exhibit 83?

A. No

Q. How about a case brought against Sidaco for writing Exhibits 81 & 85. Have you heard of any such case?

A. No

Q. Sir are you aware of any case at all alleging a breach of the PPA law has been brought against Louis Dreyfus for writing Exhibit 82?

A. No

Q. How about Chemico, if any case has been brought for having written Exhibit 84?

A. No.

Q. Sir so that as a far as you are aware the only company being prosecuted for responding to COCOBOD letter of 25/02/14 is Agricult, the third accused person in this case?

A. Yes

Q. Sir please take a look at Exhibit T and Exhibit U, and confirm to the honourable court that Exhibit T is the same letter found on the fifth page of Exhibit U?

A. Yes, my lord it is the same

Q. Kindly take a look Exhibit 84 which is from Chemico and confirm to the honourable court that same letter is what is attached to Exhibit 92, which is a contract between Ghana Cocoa board and Chemico?

A. It is the same.

Q. Sir kindly take a look also at Exhibit 85, which is from the Sidaco ltd that it is the same as attached to Exhibit 93 being a contract between Sidaco ltd?

A. It is the same

Q. And sir also take a look at Exhibit 85, which is from Louis Dreyfus and confirm to the court that it is the same as attached to Exhibit 94, which is a contract between Cocoa Board and Louis Dreyfus?

A. Yes my lord, it is the same.

Q. On 17/03/2022, you told the honourable court that the board approve the budget after the budget has been considered by the board subcommittee on finance is that correct?

A. Correct

Q. And this was the same process from 2014-2016. Sir would you remember how many members were on this finance subcommittee

A. I think about five. 

Q. Would you remember some of the person you served with on this subcommittee?

A. Mrs Afriyie Hafaar, Deputy Minister for Finance, Hon Cassiel Ato Forson and the Chairman was the… 

Q. Was the finance subcommittee regular in it meetings?

A. No.

Q. So how did it consider the budgets?

A. The subcommittee meets as and when issues are referred to them. 

Q. Sir was A1 (Dr Opuni) part of the Finance subcommittee

A. I don’t remember seeing him attending any of these meetings.

Q. Sir, did the board have any means of monitoring or having feedback on the performance of these agrochemicals that the board had approved to be procured by COCOBOD?

A. My lord I don’t seem to understand

Q. If there was an issue about the performance of the agrochemicals being applied by the farmer, how that complaint might get to the attention of the board?

A. My Lord, various divisions of COCOBOD including CRIG submitted their monthly performance report to management and adverse report on agrochemicals will come through CRIG or CHED. Should there be any management will highlight it for the board’s attention. I don’t remember having any. Also, the board have two farmers’ representatives. Any adverse performance on crops by agrochemicals will also be brought directly to board meetings by these two farmers’ reps. But coincidentally, nothing of that nature happened if my memory sets me right.

Q. Sir if any such adverse performance report came to the board’s attention or was discussed at the board meeting that would be captured in the board’s minutes. That is correct?

A. Yes

Q. And the board naturally would have reacted to any such adverse performance report that is correct?

A. Yes 

Q. For a fact between 2014/15, when you served on the board, there was no farmer complaint or adverse performance report against Lithovit liquid fertilizer that came to the attention of the board. That is correct

A. Yes

Q. Now sir you are aware that CHED produced annual reports on the CODAPEC/HITECH unit from when that unit came CHED?

A. Yes. May I add that I have not personally seen copy of that report but I’m aware that they gave a copy to management.

Q. You told the court that you were a member of the entity tender committee?

A. Yes

Q. Sir for how long did you serve on that committee?

A. April 2014  to Dec 2016

Q. Sir who chaired that Committee in that time?

A. The committee was chaired by the board chairman

Q. And was the DCE F&A a member on that committee?

A. I don’t recollect. I director of Finance I was a member. 

Q. How about the Director of Audit?

A. Director of Audit is not a member

Q. Do you remember there was any other director apart from the Director of Finance who served on the entity tender committee?

A. Director of Civil works is part.

Q. How about the Director of Estate?

A. I’m trying to recollect. I don’t recollect.

Q. Now you told the court that the Entity Tender Committee… the approval for the procurement of goods is that correct

A. Yes

Q. What was involved in this approval processes by the Entity Tender Committee?

A. The entity tender committee has the responsibility to consider and approve all contracts of major procurements for instance contracts that have been advertised and considered by a panel will come to the entity tender committee for consideration and then by law, there are contracts that certainly have to go to the PPA. All these contracts whether PPA approval or by advertisement and panel evaluation, will all be to the ETC. That is how come PPA approval comes to the ETC on concurrent approval. There may be other contracts whose values may require that they go to the Central tender board and also the ministerial view board.

Q. I supposed the ETC carried out this process this function of concurrent approvals in meetings, is that correct?

A. Yes

Q. And minutes of these meetings are kept?

A. Yes

Q. Were you regular in these meetings as a member of the ETC? 

A. Yes. And it is because the secretary to the ETC was a procurement manager who works under my supervision and the minutes go to management for approval most of the issues will be referred to my office.

Q. From the proceedings of the ETC, the follow-up actions are extracted into a document signed by the secretary to the ETC and sent to Chief Executive that is correct?

A. My lord, my lord I need to explain, what happens is that the minutes of the meeting are sent to the Chief Executive.

By Court: In view of some discussions between the beach and the bar, it is agreed that this matter is adjourned to the next week.

So in the circumstances, case stand adjourned to Monday, April 11 at 10 am