Opuni trial: There was no meeting to convince Scientists to breach testing procedure of fertilizers-Witness

Dr Francis Baah, Director of Research at the COCOBOD has denied claims that a meeting was convened upon the assumption of office of Dr Kwabena Opuni, the first accused in the cocoa trial, where a decision was taken to compel Scientists to breach testing procedures for the fertilizers.

The purported meeting was allegedly attended by Dr Francis Baah, who is also a former office manager of Dr Opuni, Mr Yaw Akrofi, Dr Agyemang Dwomoh, Alex Afrifa, Dr Franklin Manu Amoah and Mr James Kofi Kutsoatsi and Dr. Stephen Kwabena to discuss fertilizer matters.

But According to Dr Francis Baah, the meeting could not have been possible because Mr James Kofi Kutsoatsi took office as the Deputy Chief Executive in charge of Operations in April, while the said meeting, which the latter reportedly attended, took place in January, same year.

Dr Baah contended that he worked directly under Dr Opuni as his office manager, he did not remember any meeting of that sort being held by his boss or sight records of such a meeting.

The witness, however, told the court that heads of the various divisions of COCOBOD were invited one after the other to make presentation on the functions of their respective divisions.

He further told the Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, during cross-examination that the other engagements his former boss had with officers from CRIG was a durbar or exhibition where the Scientists showcased the work they do.

Dr. Baah, second defense witness (DW2) for Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited, also told the court that Dr. Franklin Manu Amoah, Executive Director of CRIG then, used the occasion to introduce Dr Opuni to the staff, a ritual he witnessed throughout his 29 years working life at CRIG.

 

The following is the cross-examination;

Q: Dr Baah, you see, yesterday we ended on the request for quotation letters, which were sent to not only the third accused. You know, this letter requested third defendant to respond to the letter on or before Wednesday 26th February. Now by Exhibit T, the third accused responded to the letter and supplied the delivery period, delivery site and terms of payment. That is contained in the letter you are holding?

A: Yes my lord, Exhibit T contains the information counsel mentioned.
Q: On Exhibit T, the letter is addressed to the Chief Executive who at that time was first accused?

A: My lord the letter is addressed to the Chief Executive of Cocoa Board.
Q: On the letter, even though was addressed to Chief Executive, the letter was referred to the requisite departments, which were required to deal with it?

A: Yes my lord, on Exhibit T before me, the Chief Executive then referred the letter to the Deputy Chief Executive F&A, he then referred to the Director of Finance to process. My lord, the Director of Finance also asked the Procurement Manager to deal with Exhibit T.

Q: What does “to deal” means? Having worked as the Office Manager at the Chief Executive’s office with regards to letters like this. In fact, to deal means the requisite officer should work on the terms in the letter. Isn’t it?

A: Yes my lord. My lord, this is a Procurement Manager who is versed with procurement issues to assemble documents and commence the necessary process that will bring the directive into effect.

Q: In that case, when the Chief Executive received this letter, he did not personally addressed the issues in the letter, but referred it to the technical experts who also referred it to the requisite unit,ie, the Procurement Department to work on it?

A: Yes my lord, on the face of Exhibit T before me and the meaning there on, I have to concur with counsel.
Q: You see, Mr Charles TettehDodoo in his evidence on the 6th of December 2021 at page 12 of the day’s proceedings stated that the prosecution erred when it stated that this Exhibit T shows that there was a further breach of the Procurement Act by first accused when he received this letter?

A: My lord I am not familiar with the Procurement Act, not being a lawyer, but on the face of the document before me, Exhibit T, and having worked at the office of the Chief executive, the flow of the minutes on Exhibit T appears consistent with procedural activities of letters of such nature.

Q: Exhibit N, which is dated 19th February 2014, is an application from COCOBOD for approval to sole source various fertilisers including lithovit to PPA. And in it, you have the various prices of the fertilisers at page 2?

A : Yes my lord.
Q: You see, if you look at Exhibit S, which is the request for quotation. Exhibit S is an identical letter, which request for quotation for the fertilisers that prices have been stated in Exhibit N. Isn’t it?

A: Yes my lord, it is so.
Q: Now while Exhibit N, which has the prices is dated 19th February 2014 , Exhibits 76, 77, 78 and X are dated 25th February 2014. Is that so?

Ans: Yes my lord.
Q: According to Mr Dodoo, when the Procurement Department was writing this letter for the signature of the Chief Executive, they already had the prices from the companies. You agree with him?

A: Yes my lord on the face of the Exhibit S, 76,77,78 and 80, juxtapose with Exhibit N,that appears to be the case.
Q: And he further stated that contrary to the prosecution claim that at the time Exhibit 76,77,78, 79 and 80, COCOBOD did not have any price quotation was erroneous because the prices were already known to the procurement department?

A: My lord Mr.Dodoo at the time was the head of finance and procurement so he is at the position to make the statement he made. I am not in a position to disagree with him.
Q: Mr Dodoo stated that having been the Director of Audit and having been the Director of Finance and a member of the Entity Tender Committee of COCOBOD, what exhibit was mainly concerned about was information for preparation of the contract. And you agree with him?

A: Yes my lord, with the position Mr Doodo has at COCOBOD including being a member of the entity tender Committee (ETC), and some privileged information he has that I don’t have as I stand here, it will be difficult for me to confirm the statement attributed to him or otherwise.

Q: But you worked with Mr Dodoo, DW1, when you were the office manager at the Chief Executive’s office. And this above statement represents what pertains at the procurement department. Is that not so?
A: Yes my lord, on the basis of what I know of him, he is a very competent man. If I may dwell on my perception of him, I may agree with his statement.

Q: Can you look at Exhibit 81? You see, Exhibit 81 is a response from Sidalco Limited in response to the identical letters ie Exhibit 78?

A: Yes my lord.
Q: You see even with Sidalco unlike third accused they responded to the letter on the same 25th of February 2014?

A: Yes my lord.
Q: And you can confirm that when this letter ie Exhibit 81 was received by the chief executive he also minuted it the same way as was done in Exhibit S?

A: Yes my lord that will be correct. I have seen the letter referred to the Deputy Chief Executive F and A, he then referred it to Director of Finance and then to Procurement Manager with the instructions “please deal”.

Q: look at Exhibit 85. It is a reply from Sidalco with respect to Sidalco liquid fertiliser thus 10-10-10?
A: My lord its 10 :10: 10. It is used to identify the nutrients in the fertiliser.

Q: And this Exhibit 85 is in reply to Exhibit 78, which is a COCOBOD letter dated the same day 25th February 2014?
A: My lord that is correct.
Q: And once again you confirm that it responded on the same 25th February, 2014 that was earlier in time than Exhibit S?

A: Yes my lord.
Q: Can you have a look at Exhibit 82. Exhibit 82 is also a reply from Louis Dreyfus and it is also dated the 26th of February, which is the same day as the reply from third accused, Exhibit T?

A: Yes my lord
Q: You have Exhibit 76 with you, you see Exhibit 83 is a reply to Exhibit 76, and it is also dated 26th of February 2014, which is also the same day as Exhibit T and concerns the same subject matter as Exhibit S?

A: Yes my lord.
Q. Now you have Exhibit 80 with you, give him exhibit 84. Exhibit 84 is a reply to Exhibit 80 and it is dated 26th February 2014?

A. Yes my Lord that is correct.
Q. And these are the same date as Exhibit T and Exhibit S?
A. My Lord that is the case.

Q. You would agree with Mr.Dodoo when in his evidence in chief on the 6th day of December, contrary to the position of the prosecution, Exhibits S, T and N were normal letters sent and received by COCOBOD for fertilizer purchases by third accused, which were the same for other fertilizers.

A. Yes my Lord, on the face of the Exhibits before me that is the case.
Q. In his evidence in chief he stated that the prosecution misconstrued Exhibits S, T and N that nothing wrongful has been done, which deals with lithovit fertilizer, when the same procedure was applied with fertilizers procured, 2013/4 season. You would agree with him?

A. Yes my Lord, on the basis of exhibits shown to me.
Q. Having worked as an office manager in the chief Executive’s office, you are aware that the Chief Executive signs contracts for fertilizers on behalf of COCOBOD?
A. My experience with the two Chief Executives, they always sign all contracts and not only fertilizers.

Q. As at the 26th day of March 2014, you were in the office of the Chief Executive as the office manager?
A. My Lord that is correct.

Q. Having been in the office of the chief executive, you will know how contracts are prepared for the execution of the chief executive, is that not so
A. That is so with contract documents

Q. With contract documents for fertilizers because it concerns procurement, according to Mr Dodoo, the contract documents for the purchase of fertilizers are prepared by procurement and vetted and all cleared by the Legal Department of COCOBOD, you would agree with that?
A. Yes my Lord that is correct.
Q. And in his evidence-in-chief in chief, he also states that when it comes to contract of fertilizers, and all contracts, in COCOBOD, after they are prepared by the requisite departments namely the Procurement and Legal Department so have prepared and vetted the contracts, it is then sent to the Chief Executive to execute the contracts on behalf of COCOBOD?

A. My Lord that was and is the procedure.
Q. He, Charles TettehDodoo, is emphatic that contrary to the position of the prosecution, the Chief Executive of COCOBOD does not prepare contracts, and in this case, he, the first accused,did not prepare the contracts for lithovit fertilizer?

A. Yes my Lord, my years in this office, contracts documents are prepared from the appropriate departments and go to the office of the Chief Executive for the appending of signature.
Q. And PW1 is also emphatic that all contracts which are executed by the Chief Executive for and behalf of COCOBOD are witnessed by the Director of Finance. In your position as a former office manager of the Chief executive’s office, you can confirm this as the practice and true position at COCOBOD, is that not so?

A. Yes my Lord, what I can confirm is that every contract received at the office of the Chief Executive for signature is witnessed by the appropriate person depending on the nature of the contract. I suspect Mr.Dodoo made that statement because he was the Head of Finance, therefore, contracts involving financial outlays would be expected by the Director of Finance or Deputy Chief Executive Finance and Administration. I have seen contracts witnessed by the Director of Legal.

Q. Mr.Dodoo was emphatic that all fertilizer contracts are witnessed by the Director of Finance and that this was the existing practice before his time and during his time. You would agree with him
A. Not in totality because, before his time, I’m not in position to confirm what was in existence before I went to the chief executive’s office

Q. If you look at Exhibit U, it has as the witness, the then Director of Finance Mrs Miriam Okwabi.
A. My Lord that is correct as per Exhibit U.
Q. And DW1 added that contrary to the prosecution’s position, there was no wrongful act by first accused when he on behalf of COCOBOD signed exhibit U?

A. My Lord on the face of Exhibit U, I agree.
Q. Having worked as the office manager in the office of the Chief Executive, you are aware that contracts for the supply of fertilizers because they are time bound, namely the fertilizers would have to be applied from a particular time of the year, before the advent of the rains, all these contracts are mostly prepared and executed around the same period, you will agree?

A. Yes my Lord, that is a valid statement that I agree with.
Q. You have in your hands Exhibit 92. And this is a contract for the supply of cocoa feed fertilizer, which is dated 26th day of March 2014, between COCOBOD and chemico, and this contract is also signed on behalf of COCOBOD by the first accused as the chief executive of COCOBOD?

A. Yes my Lord on the face of Exhibit 92 is the case.
Q. Just as Exhibit U it is also witnessed by the Director of Finance, Miriam?
A. Yes my Lord that is so.
Q. It also has as its attachment identical documentation just as Exhibit U, namely notification of award of contract and quotation from Chemicolimited, is that it?

A. That’s so my Lord
Q. This particular fertilizer is one of the fertilizers together with lithovit is the subject matter of Exhibits S, U and Q, which are correspondence between COCOBOD and PPA on sole source of fertilizer for 2013/14 cocoa season. Is that not the case?

A. On the basis of the exhibits aforementioned that is the case.
Q. You see, when you were invited by the various investigative bodies namely EOCO, and police CID, did they ever question you with respect to the contract on Chemico, which is the subject of exhibit 92?

A. No my Lord.
Q. But you would agree that this contract namely Exhibit 92 followed the exact procedures namely application to the PPA to sole source the purchase of this fertilizer, preparation of contract, that is exhibit 92 by the requisite personnel and departments of COCOBOD and execution of same by the chief executive for and behalf of COCOBOD and his signature witnessed by Miriam as the director of finance, is that not so?

A. Yes my lord, on the basis of all the exhibits, I have been inundated with. They have all gone through the procedures that I am aware of. With my experience at the chief executive’s office, I say yes I agree
Q. Have a look at exhibit 93. Exhibit 93 is a contract dated 28th day of March 2014 between COCOBOD and Sidalco?

A. Yes my Lord.
Q. And it is for Sidalco liquid fertilizer 10:10:10, which is one of the fertilizers which is the subject matter of exhibit M, N, P and Q just like lithovit liquid fertilizer?
A. Yes my Lord that is correct

Q. Once again this contract exhibit 93, just like Exhibit U was prepared by the procurement unit and vetted by the legal department of COCOBOD before the chief executive executed this contract, is that so?

A. Yes my Lord.
Q. This contract was also witnessed by the director of finance, Miriam who witnessed exhibit U, which is the subject matter of prosecution which is the contract for the supply of lithovit liquid fertilizer

A. Yes my Lord, I have exhibit 93 and U and the statement from counsel is the truth
Q. you see the exhibit 93 which is for the supply of Sidalco 10:10:10, exhibit 92 which is also a contract for the supply of Cocofeed by Chemico and exhibit U for the supply of Lithovit liquid fertilizer followed the same procedures that is so?

A. On the basis of exhibit U and 92 before me that is so.
Q. If contract was also executed by the chief executive in the course and exercise of his functions as the proper person to execute this contract on behalf of COCOBOD?

A. Yes my Lord that is the case
Q. Exhibit 94 is the contract dated 26th day of March 2014 between COCOBOD and Louis Dreyfus for the supply of cocomaster granular fertilizer?

A. Yes my Lord.
Q. Can you confirm that this particular fertilizer, Cocoamaster is the subject matter of Exhibit L which is the letter dated 16th of February to cabinet for approval. Exhibit M, which is a letter dated 13th February 2014 to the Minister of Finance for approval, Exhibit N which is the letter from COCOBOD seeking approval from PPA, exhibit P which is the PPA letter seeking further information before approval and Exhibit Q which is the value for money analysis explanation letter from COCOBOD dated 25th February 2014?

A. Yes my Lord.
Q. Can you further confirm that this particular fertilizer Cocoamaster granular fertilizer was one of the fertilizers together with lithovit which was approved by the PPA to be sole sourced?

A. Yes my Lord.
Q. Can you also confirm that Exhibit U, which is the contract for lithovit, apart from the mentioning of the individual fertilizers, type of fertilizers, prices and quantities were all prepared in March 2014?

A. Yes my Lord, as per the exhibits before me.
Q. And you can also confirm that apart from information as to the price, the type of fertilizers and the quantities, the information in Exhibits U, 92, 93 and 94 are identical. Is that not so?

A. My Lord yes that is so.
Q. Even the font size, the page numbering are identical.
A. My Lord it appears so.

Q. Having worked in the Chief Executive’s office as the office manager during the tenure of the predecessor to the first accused and the first accused, you are aware that contracts of this nature executed by COCOBOD are rightful and legitimate contracts after due process have been observed, is thatso?

A. Yes my Lord that is so.
Q. When you were investigated and by this I mean when the police CID together with EOCO took investigation statements from you they never concerned themselves with the other fertilizers, particulars of which are contained in Exhibit V apart from lithovit

A. That would be correct my Lord. If I may recall what counsel is saying, when I was invited to assist in the investigation, I recalled two areas the issue of fertilizer came in. One was the relationship between fertilizer application and yield or output. And the second my Lord was the first time I saw lithovit and was asked what form it was, this was by the CID at Tafo.

My lord I explained to them that I couldn’t recall the first time I saw it but I was very definite that what I saw on the field is liquid. I did also explain the relationship between application and yield, it was not a linear relationship.

Q. During the investigations, the police and or investigators never stated to your knowledge that first accused personally prepared Exhibits 92, 93 and 94 which are identical fertilizer contracts to lithovit?
A. I was not asked any question on contracts

Q. The prosecution in their opening statement and in the fact stated even though COCOBOD has spent huge sum of money to purchase lithovit liquid fertilizer in 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 cocoa seasons there wasn’t any appreciable increase in cocoa production, and this was a loss, are you aware of that?

A. My Lord I’m not aware.
Q. As a staff and experts in the production of cocoa, I’m putting it to you that is a wrongful statement to state that lithovit liquid fertilizer purchased in 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 on its own as a standalone did not have any impact on the production of cocoa for this year?

A. My lord I will not go to the tangent to explain the relationship between Fertilizer and yield as PW3 has said. The fact of the matter is that, my Lord, fertilizer application impinges on output or production moderated by factors such as the nature of the cocoa trees, critically the weather, pest incidents, and diseased pressures.

My Lord these are the factors that moderate the effect of fertilizer on cocoa yield. So my Lord I would not subscribe to any assertion that any fertilizer or group of fertilizers equates to the yield, that is a fallacy.

Q. Dr Baah, do you know Dr Franklin Amoah?
A. Yes, I know Dr Franklin Manu Amoah.
Q. In fact, you worked under him at a point in time when you were at CRIG?

A. Yes that is correct, he was the Executive Director and I was a Research Scientist.
Q. And I believe it was at CRIG you were transferred to the Chief Executive office as the office manager, is that the case?

A. Yes my lord, that is correct.
Q. You see, Dr Franklin Amoah is the prosecution first witness PW1. In his evidence on the 18th July, 2018, he states that he had series of meetings with A1 when he assumed office. The question is, you see, as the office manager in the office of the Chief Executive, one of your functions is to attend meetings with the Chief Executive. That is true?

A. I attend meetings with the Chief at his pleasure.
Q. You see, when you were the office manager during the first accused predecessor, Mr Fofie, you also attended meetings with him because that is part of your functions, is that not the case?

A. Yes my lord, I do attend meetings with him but it is not the case that I attend every meeting with him.
Q. But your duty as the office manager is akin to as a personal assistant of the Chief Executive

A. Yes my lord, the position was an office manager but function as the Personal Assistant.
Q. According to Dr Amoah (PW1) in his evidence before this court, when A1 took over (reading) “shortly after Dr Opuni assumed office in late 2013, he was called to do a presentation on CRIG and this was done in the board room of COCOBOD and this was done in the presence of the outgoing Chief Executive, Mr Anthony Fofie”, do you remember a meetings of this sort as involved the outgoing and incoming Chief Executive?

A. I remember there was a series of meetings where directors presented the work that they do. It was not one day. I don’t remember Mr Anthony Fofie being present in these meetings. Dr Opuni assumed office, he wanted each head of division to do a presentation on what they do in those divisions. So my lord, we did a schedule and it was one director after the other. It took a couple of days.

Q. You see, Dr Amoah was emphatic that during his presentation you have other Senior management of CRIG at this meeting, which had in attendance the outgoing chief executive and incoming Chief Executive, A1. You are aware of this meeting since you were the one who arranged the base of this meeting?

A. Yes my lord, this was not a meeting. It was a presentation of what a director and the division do. My lord, if I may add it was attended by all directors who were available.
Q. Indeed in his evidence, which is found in page 26, of the proceedings of 18th July, 2018, on value on of the record, it was a presentation and the senior management of CRIG came to support him. That was the case?

A. Yes that was the case but I don’t recall those senior management who accompanied him.
Q. At the end of December 2013, although A1 has been appointed as the Chief Executive, his predecessor until he left on 31st of December, was the one who taking decisions by way of management?

A. I cannot recall the date but I know there was a transition that both of them were coming to the office.
Q. Are you aware or did you know some few days later after the presentation saw Dr Amoah in the office for a private meeting with Dr Opuni, which he claims took place?

A. My lord I can’t recall that.
Q. You see, as the office manager, if A1 wanted to summon PW1 who was the Executive Director of CRIG, you would have been the person you to do so, especially when you have prior invited or summoned them for a presentation some few days ago?

A. It is the case. For the presentation, I invited everyone for a specific day. I don’t recall being asked to call Dr Amoah as counsel put it for a private meeting?
Q. Contrary to what PW1, Dr Franklin Amoah stated in his evidence in this court, A1 has denied that any such subsequent meeting as described by Dr Amoah took place. I’m suggesting to you that if any such meeting took place you would have notice of the meeting?

A. Not necessarily, especially when counsel described it as private meeting. If I may add, the only meeting, I can recall is when the Chief Executive invited Dr Amoah was to discuss the bad press that was going on about his person. Any other private meeting I don’t recall.

Q. You see, in Dr Amoah evidence-in-chief, he stated that after the presentation a few days later, Dr Opuni summoned him into office and asked more about chemical testing which he elaborated on. This could not have been a private meeting. Are you aware of any subsequent meeting?

A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Any such meeting as described by Dr Amoah where he is summoned by the Chief Executive, where he elaborated on the testing can never be a private meeting as I initially suggested to you?

A. That might be the case.
Q. In COCOBOD…you have minutes of meetings and presentations. So if Dr Amoah was subsequently summoned few days after the presentation, definitely there would have been records of this meeting. That is so?

A. Yes my lord.
Q. And I add again, I asked that you would likely would have been in this meeting because it concerns an official function of CRIG as the Personal Assistant for the new Chief Executive?

A. Most likely. Also at the pleasure of the Chief Executive.
Q. You see, at the time you were the office manager in the office of A1, no complaint came to your knowledge that A1 had requested or instructed that the testing period for fertilisers should be shortened?
A. No such issue came to my hearing or knowledge.
Q. You see, according to Dr Amoah again on the 8th of January, 2014, A1 made a personal visit to CRIG?

A. I recall that I was with him.
Q. And according to Dr Amoah, A1 spent the night of the 8th January at CRIG and in the morning of 9th January, he had separate meetings with the scientists and the management in one group and the entire staff in another group?

A. What I recall vividly is that the usual practice at CRIG when we have what we call exhibition for our visitors, which took place at the director’s complex. After that the Chief Executive, I was there, met all the staff at the recreational center where the Executive Director introduced the Chief Executive to the staff.

Q. So it is not true that two separate meetings were held with the scientists and management in one group and the entire working force in another group as stated by Dr Amoah in his evidence in this court?

A. I cannot confirm that there was a separate meeting for senior scientists and senior staff after the meeting at the recreation center. But what I can confirm is what is described as a meeting was a exhibition to show the Chief Executive the work of CRIG and this was attended by all scientists and senior staff. This is not a meeting but an assemblage of all the scientists and management staff where the Chief Executive is shown various activities, stand by stand.

Q. You were at this assemblage with the Chief Executive?
A. Yes
Q. And it was held in the open?
A. Yes

Q. And it was in the presence of not only scientists but other management and staff?
A. My lord that is correct .
Q. At this assemblage, you confirmed that the member of the CTCM, that is the committee for testing chemicals and machines including the acting chairman Mr Akrofi?

A. To be specific to the members I don’t remember all scientists who were there.
Q. You see at the Assemblage and/or durbar and/or exhibition, A1 did not address any issue on testing of fertiliser in any shape or form?

A. My lord no, that would have been very unusual. I have witnessed new Chief Executives introduced many times when I was at CRIG. I was at CRIG for 29 years. You just tell them about the work of CRIG and that is exactly what we did.

Q. What did the Chief Executive address the Assemblage and or durbar on, as you were present with the Chief Executive?
A. He spoke about workers working hard to sustain the industry. Essentially that was the message

Q. Because you accompanied him after this assemblage you were with him throughout, A1 never had private discussion with Dr Amoah (PW1) that is correct?
A. After the meeting I left there for Accra. I’m not aware of any meeting between the Chief Executive and Dr Amoah. I left for Accra after the Durbar because there is a holding room and must not be left vacant.

Q. You see, A1 also left the same day in a different vehicle at almost the same time you left.
A. I know he left. I was very surprised that Dr Opuni spent the night at Tafo. I know he doesn’t stay out overnight and never out at Tafo.
Q. You are not also a witness to any meeting between Dr Opuni and Mr Akrofi after the Assemblage as you were always with Dr Opuni?

A. I can’t recall him (A1) having any meeting with Dr Akrofi or anyone else after the Assemblage.
Q. You see you know one James Kofi Kutsoatsi was the Deputy Chief of Operations at COCOBOD?

A My lord I know him very well.
Q. Cast your mind back when James Kofi Kutsoatsi assumed office as Deputy Chief Executive of Operations some few months A1 had been appointed Chief Executive sometime in April 2014?

A. That would be correct because the one who was holding the position, Mr Asante Poku was asked to hold until Mr Kutsoatsi resumed office. Mr Asante had retired.
Q. You are aware based on investigation which took place at the time, lithovit was approved i.e. COCOBOD acted on the recommendation of CRIG in January 2014, Mr James Kofi Kutsoatsi was not in his position?

A. That would be correct because Mr.Kutsoatsi did not come in January 2014.
Q. You see, it is never true that there was a meeting attended by yourself, Mr Akrofi, Dr AgyemangDwomoh, Alex Afrifa, Dr Amoah and Mr James Kofi Kutsoatsi at any place, in which A1 issues directives on reducing the test period to the scientists?

A. I agree with counsel. If he had not been appointed at the time how could he be at the meeting. I don’t recall any such meeting.

Q. So it is true that it is on truthful when PW1 in his evidence of the 18th July, 2018, specifically page 27 states: “my lord I wish to state that there were one or two platforms at which Dr. Opuni insisted on this directives and the one I remember clearly where myself, Mr. Akrofi, Dwomoh, Alex Afrifa, where all invited to his office in Accra on the same issues of reducing the testing period.

Dr Baah who the then manager in Dr Opuni and Mr James Kofi Kutsoatsi who the then deputy CE in charge of operations.” This statement can never be true as nothing of this sort happened?

A. My lord it appears so in the face of what i have been told by counsel
Q. Do you recall being at any meeting with Dr Amoah PW1 either alone or with scientists where a discussion was made with respect to reducing the test period for chemicals and fertilisers during the tenure of A1?

A. No my lord I don’t recall being present in any such meeting.
Q. I’m putting it to you that A1 has never at any forum, meeting and/or discussion in which you were present either alone or with other persons give any directive or make any statement with regard to shortening the period for the testing of fertilisers?

A. I’m not aware and do not recall any engagement.
Q. In fact, are you aware of any directive in COCOBOD in reducing or shortening of chemicals and fertilisers by A1 in your position as you stand now namely you were the office manager and subsequently at leaving the office and heading other departments in COCOBOD?

A. I’m not aware of any such directive being brought to my notice or knowledge.
Q. Having been in COCOBOD for over 30 years, if any such directive existed it would definitely be contained in some form of writing or a sort either by way of specific policy issued by COCOBOD to the requisite agencies in charge of the testing namely CRIG?

A. Yes my lord I agree with counsel. COCOBOD directives are issued to departments and staff by way of memo or circulars, My lord, I’m not aware of any such memos or circulars.
Q. You see, I’m putting it to you when, therefore, PW1 stated that A1 issued this directive he could not be speaking the truth, as any such directive would have follow due process to be effective?

A. It would appear to be the case
Q. And just as the case of contract which followed due process and not prepared by Chief Executive of COCOBOD there is a procedure for these directives?

A. Yes my lord
Q. Dr Francis Baah having worked in COCOBOD up to today can you tell the court whether you know of oral directive with respect to policy?
A. As for oral directive we get it all the time, go and represent me here and there but when it is about change in policy it has to be written.

Q. You have in hand Exhibit A. And Exhibit Awas tendered by the Prosecution through Dr Amoah and it’s COCOBOD letter to CRIG with respect to the testing of lithovit fertiliser. Who wrote this letter?

A. My lord as per Exhibit A before me, it was written by Dr. Yaw Adu-Ampomah, Deputy Chief Executive of Agronomy and Qualify Control.
Q. And this was in which year?

A. It is dated 15th of May 2013.
Q. As at the 13th May 2013 at the time this letter (Exhibit A) was written by the Deputy Chief Executive A&QC, Dr Yaw Adu-Ampomah, you were the office manager in the office of the then Chief Executive, Mr Anthony Fofie. Is that not the case?

A. Yes my lord, I was the manager in the office
Q. You see, this letter was not written by the Chief Executive because letters of these nature, which concern fertiliser testing are in the exclusive domain of the Deputy Chief Executive A&QC?

A. My lord that is correct. Not only the testing of fertilizers but testing of all Agrochemicals and machinery.
Q. According to Dr Amoah in his evidence in Chief in this court, on the 16th July, 2018, he says on page 15 “having worked at CRIG, once this letter is received together with the sample by CRIG is forwarded to the CTCM.” You can confirm this position having worked at CRIG?

A. Yes my lord that was the procedure when I was at CRIG and I can confirm that.
Q. And he further stated that because this was fertilizer, the chairman of the CTCM would forward it to the head of the soil science Division who will also pass it down to the research scientists, you can confirm that?

A. My lord I can confirm that by the tray of the minutes on Exhibit A.
Q. On page 17 of his evidence in chief, PW1 then states that after the testing, the report is written and after that it is sent to the CTCM for vetting. You are aware of that?

A. I’m aware of this procedure when I was at CRIG*
Q. Then after the CTCM have given the all clear then Dr Amoah now says that,“then brought to the Executive Director with a covering letter to be sent to the deputy Chief Executive in charge of Agronomy and qualify control for his approval. You are aware of this procedure having worked in CRIG

A. I recall that.
Q. You would now agree that according to Dr Amoah, the covering letter although signed by him, he would not be the author who would have written this covering letter?
A. Yes that is the procedure that I’m familiar with at CRIG

Q. So you can confirm that with respect to fertilisers and chemicals, it is the deputy CE A&QC who deals with CRIG and not the CE?

A. That would be correct and if I may add, that position as DCE it is usually reserved for the directors of the technical divisions ie CRIG, CHED, SPD (Seed Production Division), QCD (quality Control Division) the heads of these divisions always occupies the head of A&QC because of the technical nature

Q. You have the Exhibit B which is the covering letter.
This letter has the stamp of the Chief Executive dated 21st January, 2014 on it. According to the evidence of Dr Dodoo (DW1) on the 10th March, 2022, he says even though all letters from CRIG, in spite of the persons they are addressed to, it would first be received by the office of chief executive and after that dispatch to the addressed. You can confirm that

A. I cannot wholeheartedly confirm that, when I look at the date I suspected the office of the Chief Executive was vacant at the time and that was the reason why the letter was sent to the Deputy Chief Executive.

Q: You see, even if we didn’t have an individual occupying the office of deputy CE A and QC,you will have the technocrats at the office of the deputy chief executive A and Qc to performing the function of the Deputy Chief Executive A&QC that is the position.

A. Yes my lord if I recall that office was manned by a technical manager and I recall at the time we had technical manager and technical director so if the occupant may not be there but there were sufficient technical people to handle fertiliser issues

Q: So you will agree with Mr Dodoo that first accused will not see Exhibit B1 with the valuation report on lithovit fertiliser?
A: My lord, what I can confirm is that the authority to act will be sought from the office of the Chief Executive.

Q: And you would also agree with me that it it is for this reason the Chief Executive is not copied to this letter because this letter ie Exhibit B is a technical issue in the domain of the Deputy Chief Executive A&QC. Do you agree?

A: My lord, I do agree except that CRIG as an institution reports to the Deputy Chief Executive A&QC. So everything goes to him.

Q: PW1 Charles Dodoo in his evidence on the proceedings of 10th March 2022, stated that “my lord from my personal knowledge as a regular visitor to the office of the CE, letters from CRIG comes in a parcel. The CE secretariat will receive the parcel and then distribute the contents accordingly. So letter addressed to the Deputy CE A&QC will be sent to the office of the Deputy CE A&QC?

A: My lord that will be correct.
Q: And he also stated in answer to a question as to whether the CE will personally see this letter Exhibit B on the 20th of January 2014. He stated as follows “my lord it is not correct, Exhibits B and B1 are addressed to the Deputy CE but received at the CE’s office will be dispatched to the office of the Deputy Chief Executive A &QC.” Do you agree?

A. Yes my lord, we do that because any action subsequent will come to the Chief Executive’s office for action. For instance, as the director of research, when letters are addressed from outside to me, I addressed them back to the office of the Chief Executive for directive by way of minutes.

Q: So you see, Dr Francis Baah, it is erroneous to state that in so far as Exhibit B, which has an attachment of B1, which has the stamp of the Chief Executive, then automatically the Chief Executive received Exhibit B1 and read the content?

A: My lord, the relieved stamp signify that the Chief Executive’s office has received the letter. So you cannot extrapolate that the Chief Executive received and acted on it. They are two different things.

Q: In fact Mr Dodoo added further that the Deputy Chief Executive A&QQ’s office, a report of this nature would be worked on by the technical people at his office but not by individual person?

A: Yes my lord, the technical people will work on it but the oversight duty is on the Deputy CE, A&QC.

The post Opuni trial: There was no meeting to convince Scientists to breach testing procedure of fertilizers-Witness appeared first on The Ghanaian Chronicle.

Read Full Story