COCOBOD preliminary: CID Investigator affirms COCOBOD’s twofold norm

It has been uncovered that months after EOCO started examinations concerning lithovit foliar compost, in view of the suggestions of a top COCOBOD official, unexpectedly, a similar authority started a cycle to get the declaration of lithovit, which is a subject of examination, recharged.

The said high ranking representative, Dr. Yaw Adu-Ampomah was the top of government’s change group on Cocoa undertakings who therefore led COCOBOD inward examinations concerning bargains went into by the past organization including the obtainment of lithovit manure somewhere in the range of 2014 and 2016.

It was because of this inward examination that Dr. Adu-Ampomah, who was then the Deputy Chief Executive of COCOBOD, suggested further examination concerning the acquisition of lithovit compost under previous COCOBOD chief, Dr. Stephen Opuni under the guise that it was inadequate.

Strangely, the High Court in Accra on Monday, March 22 heard that months after the fact, while examination was continuous, Dr. Adu-Ampomah in 2017 kept in touch with CRIG to restore the authentication on lithovit manure delivered by Agricult Ghana Limited, an item which believability he, at the end of the day, has addressed.

His letter dated March 9, 2017, was named: “Recharging of Certificate for 2017 – Agricult GH Ltd”.

The letter was routed to the Executive Director of CRIG, Dr. Franklin Manu Amoah who is the main indictment observer in the preliminary of Dr. Opuni, financial specialist Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Ltd.

Dr. Yaw Adu-Ampomah has himself affirmed in the preliminary as the third arraignment witness, with a suspended charge of prevarication around his neck.

“We forward to you the connected solicitation from Agricult Gh. Ltd for the reestablishment of the enlistment endorsement of Lithovit manure. Duplicates of the earlier year’s endorsement joined.

“compassionately embrace the fundamental check on the item and recharge the endorsement for the year 2017.

“You can depend on our co-activity,” Dr. Adu-Ampomah’s letter to CRIG read in full.

The letter was gotten by CRIG on March 14, 2017, and was minuted on a day after (for example Walk 15) by the Executive Director of CRIG to the Chairman of the Committee on Testing Chemicals and Machinery (CTCM).

The Chairman of CTCM was additionally asked to “mercifully guarantee due constancy in the re-assessment of the item and submit report for sending to COCOBOD.”

The letter was again sent on March 16, to the Head of Soil Science at CRIG.

The preliminary agent, Chief Inspector Thomas Prempeh Mercer under questioning on Monday, March 22, 2019, recognized the letter composed by Adu-Ampomah just as different archives on lithovit manure.

“Presently Sir. by the fourteenth of March, 2017 when Exhibit 29 was gotten in the workplace of the Executive Director of CRIG, examinations had effectively initiated into this matter that is right,” legal advisor for the second and third Accused Nutifafa Nutsukpui who is holding brief for Benson Nutsukpui asked the observer.

“Indeed My Lord by EOCO,” Chief Insp. Prempeh Mercer affirmed.

The observer additionally affirmed seeing different letters from CRIG welcoming Agricult Ghana Ltd to make installments towards the expense of restoring testaments for Lithovit.

He additionally affirmed seeing solicitations covering those installments just as receipts proving installments made by Agricult to CRIG for the reestablishment of its authentications for lithovit manure in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Discover extracts of March 22, 2021 questioning underneath:

Q: Now Sir, during your examinations you went over CRIG declarations in regard of the Lithovit for 2015 and 2016.

A: Yes My Lord including 2014

Q: Kindly affirm to the good court that the records that you have are the CRIG testaments for 2015 and 2016 Exhibits 4 and 4A

A: Yes My Lord

Q: Now Sir, during your examinations did it become obvious how CRIG assessed the items prior to restoring their declarations

A: Yes, My Lord.

Q: Sir, you discovered that as a component of the assessment cycle, CRIG gather tests of the items that had been circulated and that were being utilized by the ranchers, that is right.

A: Yes, My Lord that is the methodology.

Q: And Sir, you see as a feature of that cycle likewise CRIG collaborates with the ranchers to find out their perspectives on the specific items being assessed by CRIG, that is right.

A: My Lord that should be the system.

Q: And now Sir, you discovered there additionally that CRIG’s choice whether to reestablish affirmation for any items depends on these rancher meets just as CRIG’s own trying of the examples they had gathered available as a feature of the assessment interaction. that is additionally right.

A: Yes My Lord

Q: And Sir did you discover likewise that CRIG will ordinarily keep in touch with the organizations providing the items to pay the expense of the assessment and restoration of an accreditation of the items in question, that is right.

A: Yes, My Lord

Q: Please show him Exhibit 29. Sir. have you gone over this archive during your examinations

A: Yes My Lord.

Q: That is a letter endorsed by Dr. Yaw Adu-Ampomah in his ability as the DCE, A&QC of Cocobod. that is right.

A: Yes. My Lord.

Q: Kindly read the absolute first passage to the good court.

A: Witness peruses out.

Q: Sir, as a feature of your examinations you explored and got a great deal of reports from CRIG, that is right?

A: Yes. My Lord.

Q: These records included letters from CRIG to Cocobod just as from CRIG to A3. that is additionally right.

A: Yes, My Lord

Q: Now Sir. by the fourteenth of March, 2017 when Exhibit 29 was gotten in the workplace of the Executive Director of CRIG, examinations had effectively initiated into this matter that is right

A: Yes My Lord by EOCO.

Q: Please affirm to the decent court that this is one of the archives you have gotten and surveyed as a component of your examinations.

A: My Lord, this record didn’t go to the consideration of the examination group.

Q: Sir, as a feature of your examinations, did you explore any reestablishments for the accreditation of Lithovit by CRIG.

A: Yes. My Lord.

Q: Sir, did you run over letters from CRIG welcoming the third blamed individual to make installments towards the expense of reestablishing its testaments for the Lithovit.

A: Yes, My Lord.

Q: Sir, and you went over solicitations raised by CRIG routed to the third blamed individual to make installments for the recharging for the CRIG confirmations, that is additionally evident.

A: Yes My Lord

Q: And you additionally ran over receipts confirming installments made by the third denounced individual to CRIG for the restoration of its declarations. that is additionally evident.

A: Yes. My Lord as a feature of the technique.

Q: Please investigate this receipt and check whether it is one of the solicitations that became obvious during your examinations

A: My Lord, over the span of our examination we saw solicitations being installments A2 made for restoration for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 yet the 2018 is the thing that I have my uncertainty.

Q: Now Sir, for the solicitations that you saw for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, did you additionally see the receipts of installments for those years.

A: Yes My Lord

Q: So if the court orders you to create them, would you be able to deliver them, Sir.

A: My Lord, throughout our examinations as Counsel properly said there were a great deal of correspondence, archives that we dominated thus on the off chance that it is essential for the records that we have I will create them at the following suspended date.

By Court: The observer is to deliver the solicitations and receipts covering the reestablishment of endorsements for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 at the following suspended date. Thus, the case is dismissed to 29th March, 2021 at 10 30am.

Dr. Stephen Opuni and Seidu Agongo who is the Chief Executive Officer of Agricult Ghana Limited are confronting a sum of 27 charges, including duping affectation misrepresentation, unyieldingly making monetary misfortune the state, illegal tax avoidance, and contradiction of the Public Procurement Act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: