[ad_1]
The High Criminal Court in Accra yesterday adjourned the case concerning COCOBOD's former chief executive officer, Dr. Stephen Kwabena Opuni, and a businessman, Mr. Seidu Agongo, who are currently tried for allegedly causing the state a financial loss equivalent to Gh. ¢ 271.3m.
The case is adjourned to allow the defense team to study the report of a committee created by the Ghana Cocoa Research Institute (CRIG), which has was filed in court and is at the center of the trial.
Useful links Ghana Politics | Ghana celebrity news | News in Ghana
The court said that although the report was filed in court on February 1, 2019, Dr. Opuni and the Director General of Agricult Ghana Limited, Mr. Agongo's defense teams, were unfortunately "poorly served with the report ".
"Justice must prevail"
"The meaning of the document is so fundamental to the trials. In these circumstances and in order that justice be done, I would order that defense counsel have time to consider the report in order to facilitate the hearing of this case, "said the court and said adjourned the hearing on February 12, 2019.
Ghana News Titles
For news from Ghana, visit the Graphic Online titles page
Ghana news headlines.
The court, presided over by Judge CJ Honyenuga, recalled that on December 3, 2019, she had ordered that certain documents be provided by the CRIG at the request of the accused's attorney.
On December 11, 2018, counsel for the directors of the CRIG and COCOBOD's Division of Cocoa Health and its Extension (CHED) filed the requested documents in court.
"While the documents were before this court, it was detected that a document dated October 21, 2014, bearing the reference number CRIG 39/14, volume 19/6448, was missing from the filed documents.
"When counsel for the directors of CRIG and CHED was asked by the court to explain why this document was not included with those provided, he explained that these documents could not be found," he said. declared the court.
In addition, he stated that the lawyer had badured the court that a committee would be formed by the CRIG to investigate the circumstances that would have led to the disappearance of the document.
The documents
The main bone of contention in this case is whether the Lithovit Leaf Fertilizer (LFF), which is the subject of the test, was liquid or powdery in nature.
The prosecution baderted that the CRIG, the body that tests agrochemicals and machinery used in cocoa production in the country, has never tested any LFF liquid that COCOBOD led by Dr. Opuni had purchased from Mr. Agongo's Agricult Ghana Limited.
Rather, it indicates that the fertilizer that had been presented to CRIG by COCOBOD for testing was of a powdery nature and that COCOBOD, led by Dr. Opuni, had purchased a lower quality liquid LFF from Agricult.
The defense, on the other hand, has always maintained that the CRIG tested LFF was liquid in nature and that this LFF was certified by CRIG for use in cocoa farms.
The defense case is that the said missing document, which includes the giving of notes, letters, field tests and invoices, proves that at all the relevant times the correspondence between Agricult, CRIG and COCOBOD showed that the LFF was liquid in nature. .
Trial time
Ms. Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa, Director of Public Prosecutions, had asked the court that the missing document with reference number CRIG 39/14 Volume 19/6448 requested by the defense team be filed in court, at the court of appeal. 39, except for a letter dated December. July 21, 2014 and for which the CRIG had, on its own, set up an investigation committee.
"CRIG presented its report and said that it can not find the documents and that it is its report that we must consult.
What is relevant is the exact reference number and not the title of the report that has no relevance, "she said.
She therefore asked why the defense team would need time when the document requested by the CRIG was reported missing.
She argued that, since Dr. Opuni's lawyer had completed his cross-examination, requesting the adjournment of the report to study the report would be pointless as it would unnecessarily delay the trial.
She therefore requested the court to allow Mr. Agongo's lawyer to continue his cross-examination, all the requested documents, with the exception of the missing document, having been provided to him.
"We need time to study the report"
In his response, Dr. Opuni's lawyer, Mr. Samuel Cudjoe, told the court that he had received the report a few minutes before the hearing and that it was not necessary. so had not had the opportunity to study it.
"As this is a criminal trial for which the penalties may be severe, we will want to have the opportunity to have time to study the document," he said.
He referred to the case of the Republic against Eugene Baffoe Bonney and four others in which the Supreme Court had stated that "all accused should have time to study documents". He therefore requested the court to adjourn the trial to the defense so that the time to study the report.
Something is wrong
Supporting his counterpart, Mr. Agongo's lawyer, Mr. Benson Nutsukpui, told the court that, although his client received the CRIG report on Monday, February 4, 2019, they were not able to study it thoroughly and felt that "there is confusion or something is wrong with the report".
According to him, although the defense team requested a document entitled "Budget for the AGRIC / CRIG training / sensitization program for extension agents and farmers on the use of Lithovit fertilizer. Agric Agric on cocoa ", entitled" Budget for training and sensitization of farmers on the use of Lithovit fertilizers ".
Insisting that the document made available to the court had been omitted, he said: "We do not want to believe that the CRIG deliberately tried to suppress the word" liquid "that the court ordered it to produce".
Therefore, he qualified the DPP's argument that the request for time to study the report would delay the trial as "totally and absolutely unfair to the accused and their lawyers".
"We can look at all the dates in this case and will find that we have never asked for an adjournment. What is the purpose of charging us additional time?
"The position of the PDP that she read the report and then said that the letter can not be found and that, as such, the court can not do anything and must continue, is not a language of justice.
"On the last date of adjournment, the court made it clear that the report had to be filed in advance so that the advice could be notified so that they could consult it," he said. he adds.
[ad_2]
Source link
