[ad_1]
Thomas Prempeh Mercer, Police Detective Chief Inspector
The seventh prosecution witness in the trial involving Dr. Stephen Opuni, former executive director of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), and two others, say that “our investigations did not focus on farmers complying with the lithovit foliar fertilizer “.
Police Chief Detective Inspector Thomas Prempeh Mercer, the trial investigator, said the investigations focused solely on testing the product and what was ultimately supplied to farmers to apply to their crops.
Detective Chief Inspector Prempeh, under questioning by Mr. Nutifafa Nutsukpui, lawyer for Seidu Agongo, CEO of Agricult Ghana Limited, said that during the investigations it was necessary to speak with two farmers, which was insignificant due to the number of cocoa farmers in the country. country.
Mr. Nutsukpui pointed out to the witness that his investigations do not reveal any farmer complaints registered by the Ghana Cocoa Research Institute (CRIG) or any COCOBOD Division against lithovitic follar fertilizer, but the witness disagrees.
The witness again disagreed with the notion that his investigations never found any complaints from a farmer about lithovit fertilizer recorded by CRIG.
Detective Chief Inspector Prempeh said his investigations were based on the fact that Agricult Ghana Limited, through its CEO, submitted to the COCOBOD Board in May 2013 lithovitic fertilizer in powder form and, when applied to cocoa , it would produce more performance.
He said that it was on this basis that COCOBOD sent the agrochemical on May 15, 2013 in powder form to CRIG for analysis.
The witness said that the final report sent to COCOBOD also indicated that the lithovit fertilizer was in powder form.
The Attorney asked the witness that as part of his investigation, he finds out how much Dr. Opuni earned monthly in COCOBOD, the witness answered affirmatively but could not mention what Dr. Opuni earned.
When asked if it was possible that the 25,000 GHS that Mr. Agongo paid into Dr. Opuni’s account could be his own money, the witness disagreed.
The witness told the court that he had explained and presented evidence to support his explanation that Dr. Opuni in his statement said that he gave Mr. Agongo money to deposit into his account, but Mr. Agongo, for another On the other hand, he said that he does not remember it but rather, the money was destined to support Dr. Opuni’s Children in Need project.
He agreed with the Attorney that the ¢ 25,000 GH was in the income generating capacity of Dr. Opuni.
The witness told the court that as part of their investigations, they also investigated the renewal of the CRIG certification and had come across a letter inviting Agricult to make the payment for the renewal of said certificate.
He also agreed that they found an invoice raised for the company to make the payments for the renewal of the CRIG certificate and also the receipts and when “necessary, it could make them available.”
It was in this note that the court ordered the witness to present the invoices, receipts that covered the renewal of the certification from 2014 to 2017.
Dr. Opuni and Mr. Agongo face 27 charges that include defrauding under false pretenses, intentionally causing financial losses to the State, money laundering, corruption by a public official, and violation of the Public Procurement Law.
Both have pleaded not guilty to the charges and are subject to a self-recognition bond of ¢ 300,000.00 GH, each. The case was postponed until March 29, 2021.
