Court gives defense lawyers time to study their report

Crime & Punishment of Thursday, February 7, 2019

Source: ghananewsagency.org

2019-02-07

A high court in Accra gave defense lawyers in the case involving Dr. Stephen Opuni, former executive director of COCOBOD and another, time to study the committee's report on the breach. presumed of certain letters and documents.

Judge Clemence Honyenugah, a judge at the Court of Appeal, sitting as deputy judge at the High Court, said that it was to allow justice to prevail and at the trial of run smoothly.

He said it was unfortunate that the defendants' lawyers were not informed of the report and that disclosure of documents to interested parties was essential to a fair trial.

The report of the committee was tabled its report on the missing documents on February 1, 2019.

Stephen Opuni, former CEO of COCOBOD, and Seidu Agongo, CEO of Agricult Ghana Limited, are charged with 27 counts, including fraud under false pretenses, deliberate financial losses to the state, money laundering money, bribery of public officials and violation of the Public Procurement Act.

They pleaded not guilty and were granted bail of 300 000 GH ¢ by judicial recognition by the Court.

On December 3, 2018, the court ordered the Executive Director of the Ghana Cocoa Research Institute (CRIG) to provide him with letters and other documents to facilitate the trial by Tuesday, December 11, 2011, at the latest. the request of Mr. Benson Nutsukpui. Mr. Agongo's lawyer.

The Ghana News Agency noted that on December 11, 2018, the lawyers of CRIG and the Cocoa Health and Extension Department filed the requested documents in court, but that these documents were before the court, it was discovered that A document dated October 21, 2014 with CRIG 39/14 Vol. 19/6446 because his reference number was missing from the documents filed.

When the Court invited Mr. Johannes Velba, Deputy Director of Legal Affairs of COCOBOD, to explain why the document in question was not included, he explained that the document could not be found and that a committee would be set up to investigate the circumstances the lack of documents.

The court asked the deputy director to file the committee's report by February 4, 2019, which was tabled on February 1, 2019. "

At the Wednesday session of the Court, Mr. Nutsukpui expressed some concern about the report.

He told the court that while browsing the site, he had noticed that with the introduction of the report, the committee made up of 3 members, charged with investigating the absence of the report, had titled "Budget for training and sensitization of farmers to the use of Lithovit fertilizer. "But on the application for the order the title was different.

He clarified that the title of the nomination ordinance was entitled "Budget for training and sensitization of extension agents / farmers for farmers / CRIG on the use of liquid fertilizer Agricult Lithovit.

Mr. Nutsukpui said: "We are not sure of the title of the same document that they are looking for or the paranoia at CRIG about the word liquid, but if it is the same document, the title will have to include lithovit liquid fertilizer. "

He added that the legal team did not want to believe that the CRIG had deliberately tried to omit the documents that the court had ordered them to produce.

The lawyer stated that he had carefully considered the findings of the report and the observations under A; point two, which refers to schedule two, which was the invoice attached to the letter, also raises the same issues.

He alleged that the report was presented at the hearing but that the word "liquid" had been removed because of paranoia at CRIG or because they were looking for another document.

Dr. Opuni's counsel, Mr. Samuel Cudjoe, concurred with Mr. Nutsukpui's comments and requested the court to give them the opportunity to study the report of the committee and to ensure that all accused need time to study the documents.

In response, Ms. Yvonne Atakora Oboubisa, Director of Public Prosecutions, told the accused in search of a document whose document had been provided and filed in court, while the CRIG had failed to find some of the documents, set up a committee locating missing documents.

She stated that they had submitted their report, which indicated that they could not find the documents bearing reference number CRIG 39/14 and that the court should follow this report, adding that what was relevant , it was the reference number, which was correct.

"The title is not relevant and it is not in evidence either," she said.

Ms. Oboubisa stated that the CRIG witnesses, who have so far testified on behalf of the state, have not hesitated to use the word "liquid lithovit fertilizer", they made it clear that from where comes lithovit liquid fertilizer.

The PDP stated that Dr. Arthur, the second Prosecution witness questioned during his cross-examination, had stated that he was only looking for lithovit powdered fertilizers, which are being presented in court, and that CRIG did not Had never tested Lithult Liquid Fertilizers.

She said the witness said that even though they found farmers using Agricult liquid lithovit fertilizer in the field, this does not mean that the CRIG has been tested.

She explained that all the documents requested by the defense had been filed in court and that the committee had indicated in its report that only these had been found.

"Why do you need time to study a document that you have asked CRIG and that is said to be missing? You can not dispute the report, which says it's missing, "she said.

Ms. Oboubisa said that the decision is taken to further delay the trial and that even if the case was adjourned, the document was missing, says the report and an adjournment would be pointless, it would only delay the trial unnecessarily.

The case was postponed until Tuesday, February 12 for the continuation of the trial.