[ad_1]
General News of Monday, January 21, 2019
Source: 3news.com
2019-01-21
Former CEO of COCOBOD, Dr. Stephen Opuni
The Ghana Cocoa Council (COCOBOD) has been tasked with completing the investigation of the missing and altered documents in the custody of the Ghana Cocoa Research Institute (CRIG) in two weeks.
The High Court of Accra, which issued the directive on Monday, January 21, 2019, insisted that COCOBOD file the commission's report on February 5 in court. The documents were described as "relevant" by the defendants' lawyers in the trial of Dr. Stephen Opuni and Dr. Seidu Agongo.
Dr. Opuni, former CEO of COCOBOD, and Agongo, CEO of Agricult Ghana Limited, are on trial for allegedly committing acts that resulted in a financial loss of 271.3 million GH in a series of commitments related to fertilizer.
Since the beginning of the case, one of the main issues of contention is whether the Lithovit Foliar Fertilizer (LFF), subject of the test, was liquid or powdery.
In the meantime, documents of interest to the court include an invoice attached to the letter of November 20, 2014, an evaluation report on Codapec / Hitec products submitted to COCOBOD in accordance with CRIG CRG27 / 118/4643 of August 31st. 2016. The second is a report on the badysis of two samples of granular fertilizers contained in a sack of rice, submitted to the Director General on October 24, 2016 by a letter bearing the reference number CRG39 / 14Vol22 / 5577 There is also another letter dated October 21, 2014.
Deputy Director of Legal Affairs of COCOBOD, Mr. Johannes Velba told the High Court on December 17, 2018, that COCOBOD had set up a committee to investigate the circumstances of the disappearance of documents.
Before trial began on Monday in court, second and third accused lawyers, Benson Nutsukpui, and Dr. Opuni's lawyers, the first accused, Samuel Cudjoe, asked to be made aware of the committee's report.
Mr. Velba informed the court presided over by Judge Clemence Honyenuga, judge at the Court of Appeal, having additional responsibilities as a judge in the High Court, that the committee had not yet "completed his works".
"Even though they are about to complete their work, they have not been able to find the document and they are not able to disentangle the circumstances that led to its disappearance." . Monseigneur, we are waiting for the final report, "he said.
When asked how long he thought the report would be ready, he said he would be ready in two weeks, stating that the committee was sitting in Tafo, in the Ashanti region, where the CRIG is located.
Although the case was preceded by the cross-examination of the third Prosecution witness, Dr. Alfred Arthur, Acting Chief of the CRIG Soil Sciences Division, the lawyer Nutsukpui pointed out that, the report of the committee on the altered document not being ready, will be unfair to the court "if we close the cross-examination without him".
The case was sent back to 6 February on the explicit instruction of Judge Clemence Honyenuga to Mr. Velba to ensure that the committee "speeds up" its work and completes its investigation into this case by 4 February.
The Ghana Institute for Cocoa Research was ordered to file the report in court on February 5 before the next adjournment date.
PROCEDURE
During cross-examination, Mr. Nutsukpui accused Ms. Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), of "interesting" to try to "gag" a state witness. to "answer questions about official documents".
The witness, Mr. Alfred Arthur, was seen presenting a set of documents filed by COCOBOD on December 19, 2018.
Mr. Arthur testified in the prosecution case that the fertilizer in question was not liquid. He was therefore asked to review the documents and confirm to the court that in its previous position the CRIG had never described litovite as a liquid Litovite fertilizer.
He maintained his position that the CRIG had never tested liquid fertilizer in Litovite.
The witness also admitted that he knew Dr. Anim Kwapong, who, according to him, was the executive director of CRIG from September 2014 to February 2017. But his attention was drawn to the fact that, when Dr. Kwapong gave the notes. , it was stated that during his tenure, renewal of the certificate and agrochemical products were made, he said that he was not aware.
He then maintained his position that he was unaware that the Litovite fertilizer certificates were renewed in 2016 for the 2017 season.
Dr. Arthur later admitted to appearing for the Adu Ampomah Committee, created in 2017, to investigate the case that is currently the subject of a lawsuit, but no one. 39, never saw the report of the committee. He stated that he was therefore not in a position to say whether the report differed from his statement that MAA Afrifa, former head of the CRIG Soil Science Division and one of JH Dogbatse, stated that that the Duapa fertilizer had not been tested.
On documents filed by the CRIG on 11 December 2018 pursuant to court orders, the witness acknowledged that they had been filed by COCOBOD with the stamp of its legal service.
When lawyer Nutsukpui asked the first, from among a pile of documents, his last paragraph quoting "a Lithovit liquid fertilizer," Dr. Arthur responded in the affirmative.
But the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms. Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa, rose and objected to the line of questioning and demanded its deletion.
She argued that the documents were created by a scientist and not by the witness. As a result, he could not testify on matters for which he knew nothing and could not answer questions, accusing the defense attorney of attempting to "smuggle" documents.
Benson Nutsukpui however clarified that it was not stated that the witness was the author of the documents but that after being able to identify the documents, the question was only intended to demonstrate the relevance of the documents.
Mr. Nutsukpui stated that the prosecutor's office is a public duty, with reference to a Supreme Court decision, stressing that the public prosecutor has the duty to provide all the necessary documents to confirm the guilt or innocence of the prosecutor. l & # 39; accused.
But the judge noted that since the witness had denied that the fertilizer was liquid, the 2nd and 3rd accused lawyers should have presented the documents in evidence so as to be fair and just to the witness who was not present. was not the author.
After laying the groundwork for her decision, Judge Clemence Honyenuga dismissed the question and struck it off "for reasons of fairness".
Source link
