The third prosecution witness in the COCOBOD trial, Dr Yaw Adu-Ampomah, twice the Deputy Chief Executive in charge of Agronomy and Quality Control, has been criticized for concealing a crucial report from the Ghana Standard Authority (GSA).
He had excluded the report in question from an exhibit which the prosecution tendered in evidence through him in 2021, to nail Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni, ex-Chief Executive Officer of COCOBOD and businessman, Alhaji Seidu Agongo, who is the owner of Agricult Ghana Limited, supplier of the Lithovit foliar fertilizer.
Dr Yaw Adu-Ampomah, had twice served as the Deputy Chief Executive in charge of Agronomy and Quality Control, first under Dr Opuni during the Mahama administration and even getting a post-retirement contract.
He went on retirement, but was brought back by the Akufo-Addo government in 2017, and was reinstated to the same position to serve under Joseph Boahene Aidoo, he was later moved to the Ministry of Agriculture, where he became an advisor to the then minister, Owusu Afriyie Akoto, on Cocoa Affairs.
The exhibit marked H, is the report of a committee Dr Adu-Ampomah himself chaired in 2017, which investigated the testing of lithovit liquid fertilizer, a product his report suggested was substandard but was bought by COCOBOD between 2014 and 2016.
Despite having full knowledge of the existence of three laboratory test results, which are products of a petition he sent to EOCO, when he returned from retirement to COCOBOD, as the Deputy Chief Executive in charge of Agronomy and Quality Control, he omitted one of them which was emphatic that the lithovit liquid fertilizer which is under investigation was indeed a fertilizer.
Giving her testimony under cross-examination yesterday, Tuesday, June 18, 2024, Genevieve Baah Mante, Head of the Material Science Department at the Ghana Standard Authority (GSA), conceded that Dr Adu-Ampomah, failed to disclose that crucial report in his report (Exhibit H), noting that the test result was generated by the General Chemistry lab under her department.
The Adu-Ampomah report (Exhibit H), however, contained the two other test results: one of them, Mrs Mante revealed, was tested at the wrong lab at the GSA that deals in narcotics, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. The other was a disputed report from the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana.
Mrs Baah Mante, a subpoenaed witness, has been testifying in the ongoing trial of former Chief Executive of COCOBOD, Dr. Opuni and businessman Seidu Agongo as well as Agricult Ghana Limited, producers of lithovit liquid fertilizer, who have been facing 27 charges, including defrauding by false pretences, willfully causing financial loss to the state, corruption by public officers and contravention of the Public Procurement Act in the purchase of Lithovit Liquid Fertilizer.
During yesterday’s proceedings, Dr Adu-Ampomah’s failure to disclose the second GSA report, which confirmed the substance as a fertilizer, was highlighted as particularly problematic after it was revealed in court that the report contradicted earlier findings by the same GSA.
The witness, therefore, agreed that Dr. Adu-Ampomah’s failure to present the second report from the GSA, which classified the sample as a fertilizer, was disingenuous.
The witness stated that during a meeting to reconcile the different reports, no mention was made of the six-month test conducted by COCOBOD on lithovit. When questioned about the ethical implications, the witness agreed that COCOBOD should have disclosed all relevant tests to ensure a comprehensive evaluation by the testing agencies.
“As a fellow scientist like Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah, I am putting it to you that it is disingenuous not to place all the test reports before the committee as Dr Yaw Adu Ampomah did,” lawyer Samuel Codjoe, lead counsel for Dr. Opuni told the witness.
Mrs. Baah Mante said “yes” in response to that question.
Meanwhile, the witness has earlier spoken about a meeting held in the office of former Senior Minister Yaw Osafo Marfo to address discrepancies involving the three test results. She also informed the court that despite extensive discussions, the meeting did not resolve the “conflicting” test results, prompting scientists who analysed the test results to recommend to Mr Osafo Marfo to allow the team to conduct another test or take a sample abroad to test for the efficacy or otherwise of lithovit liquid fertilizer. There is, however, no record that the advice from the experts was adhered to, the witness told the court.
The witness further emphasized that at the meeting convened by Mr Osafo Marfo, the GSA’s chemistry lab test result confirmed that the sample was fertilizer was “never challenged and or set aside”.
Lawyers for Dr Opuni, further discredited the Adu-Ampomah committee, which rather claimed that the first test conducted by GSA at the Drugs, Cosmetics and Forensic lab was the final report.
“I am putting it to you that the statement in paragraph k of Exhibit H page 7, in so far as it states that the final test report from GSA states that ‘the sample could not be classified as pesticides, fungicides or fertilizer’ was a gross misrepresentation, as the final report from GSA was your second report,” counsel put to the witness.
She replied, “Looking at the dates on the two reports from the Ghana Standard Authority, the last report was from the Chemistry lab and not from the drugs, forensics and cosmetics.”
“I am putting it to you that the statement in paragraph k is not true as the final test report from the GSA stated that the sample is a fertilizer,” lawyer Codjoe reiterated, to which the witness responded “Yes”.
Meanwhile, an attempt by Mrs. Evelyn Keelson, Chief State Attorney to discredit the second GSA test result which confirmed the efficacy of lithovit liquid fertilizer was parried by the witness.
Cross-examining the witness, the prosecution challenged the comprehensiveness of the report, suggesting that it failed to address all requested parameters and lacked detailed remarks.
But Mrs Baah Mante defended the report conducted by her department, explaining that the Ghana Standard Authority did not have the capacity to test for some of the parameters requested, such as first aid measures and firefighting measures.
The report, she said, had addressed four of the eleven requested parameters, including identification, composition, physical properties, and toxicological information.
The witness mentioned that clients were usually informed about the testing capabilities and limitations before any analysis was conducted.
The next hearing date is tomorrow, Thursday June 20, 2024.
Find excerpts of Tuesday’s proceedings below
Q: Have a look at Exhibit H and the Exhibit H is the Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah report on the test on lithovit conducted by the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana and it was signed by Dr. Luis Doamekpor. On page 9 at the 1st paragraph. The report from the university of Ghana states that although the sample they took for the testing is lithovit, its application on cocoa farms with respect to growth and yield stages remain experimental and specifically on growth.
A: Yes it is stated there.
Q: But you can confirm that the instructions which was given to the Chemistry Department which is the same as the instruction given to the Ghana Standard Authority never mentioned the fact that Cocobod itself had conducted a test on the effect of lithovit on cocoa at the nursery stage.
A: Yes the letter never mention anything like that.
Q: At your meeting to reconcile these three reports, were you briefed or notified by Cocobod representative at the meeting that Cocobod itself had conducted a six months test on lithovit prior to they giving the sample to you?
A: I do not remember.
Q: As a Scientist, I am putting it to you that Cocobod by the ethics of science should have informed all the testing agencies that it had also conducted a test on efficacy of lithovit on cocoa when the issues came before the meeting by way of the three different reports in Honourable Osafo Marfo’s office.
A: I do not remember what Cocobod said at the meeting. I was concerned with my role as an analyst so I paid more attention to what concerns me.
Q: Did the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana subsequently contact the GSA to reconcile your report or agreed on a new methodology for a new test?
A: I am not aware of any contact made. However, there was an arbitration meeting set up and I was not part.
Q: How did you know about this arbitration?
A: Miss Fiona Gyemfi was part and she mentioned it to me.
Q: Are you aware that it was 2nd and 3rd accused persons who initiated this arbitration proceedings against Cocobod?
A: No.
Q: But you can confirm that from the recommendation of the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana on page 9 of their report, it is never a finding and or recommendation that lithovit was not a good fertilizer.
A: Yes. It is not stated here as such.
Q: The first recommendation of the Chemistry Department is explicit that the amount of lithovit found in the sample examined is very small. That is it?
A: Yes.
Q: You would agree with me that when you met at the meeting, one of the main issues which cropped up was how the sample which was tested was taken.
A: Yes.
Q: And you further agree with me that in testing a sample it is very crucial that proper protocols with respect to how the sample is taken for testing as that has a very vital and crucial effect on test results.
A: Yes.
Q: Are you aware that with respect to the first samples sent for testing to the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana and the Ghana Standard Authority, it was only Cocobod and specifically Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah who sent the sample for testing to EOCO for onward delivery to these two institutions.
A: No, I am not aware.
Q: You subsequently became aware when the second sample was sent to you department that the 2nd and 3rd accused persons were present when samples were taken from the warehouse of Cocobod by officials of Cocobod and EOCO.
A: No. The sample came with a letter from EOCO so we know it was submitted by EOCO officials. That is all we know. We don’t know how it was sampled.
Q: At the said Osafo Marfo’s meeting, your test result with respect to confirming that the sample was fertilizer was never challenged and or set aside.
A: Yes.
Q: Please confirm from Exhibit H that the meeting in Honourable Dr. Osafo Marfo’s office to discuss the three test results took place long before 7th November, 2017.
A: I have not read the whole of Exhibit H so I cannot confirm when the meeting was held.
Q: You can confirm that this report makes reference to the test report from the University of Ghana i.e. Chemistry Department with respect to the test on lithovit.
A: Yes.
Q: You can further confirm that this report in paragraph k also makes reference to the test report from the Ghana Standard Authority. Is that not so?
A: It makes reference to the report from the forensic lab of GSA specifically.
Q: I am putting it to you that the statement in paragraph k of Exhibit H page 7, in so far as it states that the final test report from GSA states that “the sample could not be classified as pesticides, fungicides or fertilizer” was a gross misrepresentation as the final report from GSA was your second report.
A: Looking at the dates on the two reports from the Ghana Standard Authority, the last report was from the Chemistry lab and not from the drugs, forensic and cosmetics (DFC lab).
Q: By the Chemistry lab you mean the lab of the Material Science Department of the Ghana Standard Authority which you head and not the lab of the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana. Is that not so?
A: Yes.
Q: I am putting it to you that the statement in paragraph k is not true as the final test report from the GSA stated that the sample is a fertilizer.
A: Yes.
Q: Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah who was at the meeting in Osafo Marfo’s office together with other officials of Cocobod did not make any reference to the second report from the GSA indicating that the sample they tested is a fertilizer.
A: It is so from paragraph k.
Q: As a fellow scientist like Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah, I am putting it to you that it is disingenuous not to place all the test report before the committee as Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah did.
A: Yes.
COUNSEL FOR 1ST ACCUSED: That will be all for the witness my lord.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF DW5/A2 AND A3 BY PROSECUTION
Q: You are the head of the Material Science Department of the testing Division of the Ghana Standard Authority. Is that correct?
A: Yes. We now call it Testing Directorate, former Testing Division.
Q: You have never worked at the Forensic Science Laboratory of the Ghana Standard Authority.
A: Yes.
Q: In July, 2017 when a liquid substance described as lithovit was submitted to the Material Science Department for testing, you were that acting head of the Division?
A: Our records indicates that the sample was received on 30th June, 2017 and I was acting head of the Department and not Division.
Q: The test or the testing of this sample was conducted by Miss Fiona Gyemfi. Is that correct?
A: No. She was the laboratory manager at the time and it was assigned to an analyst in the laboratory.
Q: So the analyst was the one who tested the sample. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You were not that analyst. That is correct?
A: Yes.
Q: So you never tested this liquid substance yourself. That is correct?
A: Yes.
Q: The letter from EOCO requesting for the test to be conducted i.e. Exhibit 132 for A2/A3 requested the authority to test and analyse the substance for 11 things to be done. That is correct?
A: Yes. A number of parameters were requested there.
Q: The last item requested for other information.
A: Yes.
Q: The report you approved i.e. Exhibit 133 only responded to the first item i.e. the identification of the substance by simply stating that the sample is fertilizer.
A: No. 4 things were conducted here. i.e a, b, i and k. a. for identification of substance, b for composition information, i for physical properties and k for toxicological information.
Q: There is no toxicological information in your report. That is correct?
A: No that is not correct. I can show you a copy of it.
Q: I am putting it to you that Exhibit 133 has not got any toxicological information.
A: No. The second page of the report indicate see attached toxicological information so there is an attachment indicating the toxicological information.
Q: I am putting it to you that there is no attachment. The report is page 3 out of 3.
A: As per our procedure, attachments are usually subcontracted work and we do not indicate the total number of pages but we indicate “please find attached” as an additional report. Subcontracted reports are usually reports from other laboratories which are attached to the original report.
Q: Your report aside not addressing all the issues requested for in Exhibit 132 did not indicate any remarks. That is correct?
A: Our activities are based on standards and we do not have standards for the other parameters indicated on the request. Secondly, we as part of our procedures, we explain to clients what we can do and what we cannot do before we take in samples to analyse so I believe the EOCO official was informed about the parameters we cannot do and what we can do before he submitted the sample.
Q: You do not know as a fact that any such explanation was given to EOCO.
A: That is our norm by procedure.
Q: I am putting it to you that the explanation you have given to the Court is no reason why you would not have remarks for such an examination conducted.
A: For remarks of a report are based on Ghana Standard, International Standards or Client specifications. At the time of generating this report, we did not have a Ghana Standard for fertilizer hence no remarks were made.
Q: I am putting it to you that the request to you for testing was not just about testing for a fertilizer so this explanation you have given is not born out of Exhibit 132. The fertilizer aspect was only 1 out of 12 things to be done.
A: The Ghana Standard Authority does not even have the capacity to test first aid measures and fire fighting measures as well as exposure control and the others. We tested what we had the capacity to do.
Q: I am putting it to you that your report aught to have indicated your capabilities and incapabilities since you do not know what EOCO was investigating.
A: We have a technical manual for our operations and there is no directive to request you to indicate what you cannot do.
Q: Did you see the sample which was submitted yourself?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember what was written on the sample?
A: I do not remember.
Q: Your test did not find urea in the sample you tested. That is correct?
A: We did not test for urea.
Q: In lay man’s language, you did not test for urea because there was no urea in the substance.
A: We did not test for urea in the sample.
Q: You have indicated that you checked the composition of the sample. Is that not so?
A: Not composition on the label but the composition of the fertilizer being NPK, the secondary components and the trace elements.
Q: So the test you conducted was not about the composition of the liquid substance which was submitted to you. Is that what you are saying?
A: If you receive a request for fertilizer, you will look at the primary and the secondary components as well as some trace elements and test.
Q: You were asked by EOCO to test and analyse by Exhibit 132 the content of the sample which was submitted to you.
A: We analysed what we had the capacity to do and we tested for the primary composition, the secondary and the trace element of fertilizer. That is what we do for all fertilizers. If we want to analyse the individual we might not have the capacity for special components but the basic thing is if it is a fertilizer it must have NPK. Assuming we analysed and we did not find NPK then we will state that it is not a fertilizer.
Q: I am putting it to you that nobody from EOCO requested you to test a fertilizer. The request was to test a liquid substance which was given to you.
A: We have series of discussions at the reception point and I cannot guarantee the discussion between the EOCO official and the person who received the sample but for the EOCO official to append his signature to the contract form means he has agreed in principle that we should test what we did because parameters are discussed with clients before we proceed.
Q: I am putting it to you that your report unfortunately is completely flawed because it failed to analyse the content of the sample which was handed over to GSA.
A: I disagree.
Q: Your report Exhibit 133 simply described the sample as liquid substance (lithovit) without a detailed description of the sample and who submitted it contrary to the testimony you gave under cross-examination.
A: There is a procedure for the generation of the report and always you put the name of the substance and the brand name in bracket. I have the technical manual here and we have source/purpose, we have EOCO/Quality evaluation and for the description of the sample, we normally have granular, powdered or liquid suspension to describe the sample.
Q: I am putting it to you that contrary to your testimony to this Court, it is rather the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory from the Ghana Standard Authority which gave a detailed description of the sample which was received and who submitted it.
A: We also have here further description of the sample by describing the solubility, the PH value and the density.
Q: You know that that is the description for the test conducted. The description I am referring you to is the physical description of the substance in the way it was received and even who submitted it.
A: They are different laboratories. Each lab has its own technical manual and what is expected to be put down. As per our procedure, we do not put lengthy descriptions; you just put the name in bracket and name of sample and indicate it where it is received from against the source.
Q: So you can’t say by any stretch of imagination that the description in your report is more detailed than the description in the report by the forensic lab of the Ghana Standard Authority.
A: It cannot be more detailed than our report. Referring to Quartey-Papafio’s report, I recall only three parameters; calcium, magnesium and urea as the only parameters tested. There could be more but this is what I can remember outright. I am referring to the only three parameters as being inadequate.
Q: You do not know the sample which was tested in the Quartey-Papafio’s report.
A: It is described here as lithovit.
Q: You did not see the sample which was submitted in respect of the Quartey Papafio’s report.
A: No I did not see the sample and I have never seen it.
Q: You also did not test the Quartey Papafio’s sample.
A: No.
Q: The sample which was tested by the University of Ghana Chemistry department. You did not also see that sample.
A: No I did not see it.
Q: You also did not test that sample.
A: No I did not.
Q: In fact you do not know the condition under which any of the three samples were before it came to you. Your department, the one that came to your department, that went to the forensic department and what went to the Chemistry department.
A: Yes.
Q: Quartey Papafio’s report was approved by Madam Janet Aidoo who was the head of department. That is correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And the report was forwarded to EOCO by the director testing division, C.E Frimpong. That is correct?
A: No. as per procedure it is not the director that forwards, it is signed and clients collects it at the reception except the client indicated and alternate means of collection
Q: But the Quartey Papafio’s was signed by C.E Frimpong, the Director Testing Division.
A: Yes.
Q: You are not privy to the request that was sent to Ghana Standard Authority by EOCO in respect of the test which resulted in the Quartey Papafio’s report. That is correct?
A: Yes but the same letter given to us was sent to Legon so I guess it would be the same.
Q: When you say us what do you mean?
A: Material Science Department, GSA.
Q: My question is on a request sent to Ghana Standard Authority forensic department you were not privy to any request to that department.
A: No.
Q: You were cross-examined on Exhibit H which is the Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah committee report. You did not appear before this committee.
A: No.
Q: Your report as in the report from the Material Science Department was not contained in Exhibit H.
A: I have not read the whole report. I just saw it here.
Q: So you are not in a position to pass any judgment on any aspect of Exhibit H because you have not read Exhibit H.
A: I disagree because the aspect concerning the job of Ghana Standard Authority contains rules and regulations and you make comments based on specifications in standards
Q: Exhibit H did not make any reference to your report. Are you aware?
A: I have not read the whole report. I cannot comment on it.
Q: I am putting it to you that you do not know why the report did not make reference to your report.
A: You are telling me now that it is not in the report so I do not know anything about the Dr. Yaw Adu Ampomah’s report until I entered this room.
Q: You told the Court that there were Cocobod officials present at the meeting in Honourable Osafo Marfo’s office but you cannot remember those who were present. That is correct?
A: Yes.
Q: The meeting did not ask any of you scientists to change your report. That is correct?
A: Yes.
Q: So the report you had before the meeting in Honourable Osafo Marfo’s office is the same as Exhibit 133. That is correct?
A: Yes.
Q: I am putting it to you that the reports from the forensic Department of the Ghana Standard Authority, the material Science Department of the GSA and the University of Ghana Chemistry Department cannot be described as conflicting because you tested different samples.
A: I did not describe it as conflicting but K. K. Amoah of EOCO thought so because he did not understand why the same institution should produce conflicting reports. That was his statement.
Q: But you did not or even now you had no idea what EOCO was investigating. Your department just tested a sample. That is correct?
A: No we had no idea before the sample came to us.
PROSECUTION: My Lord that will be all for the witness.
