Continued from yesterday
Q. Now sir, you told this court on the 8th February, 2021 that when you visited a Warehouse belonging to Salago Limited, you saw Lithovit being mixed with water manually?
A. Yes, my lord.
Q. And this mixture was being put into a bottle by a plant?
Q. And you told the court also that there was Lithovit of many quantities in the said warehouse?
Q. And it was this Lithovit that was being mixed?
Q. You did not see this Lithovit being manufactured in this warehouse?
Q. I’m putting it to you that A3 is licensed to mixed or blend Lithovit in Ghana?
A. Our investigation did not revealed that my lord.
Q. I’m putting it you further that the process you described as having seen in the warehouse was actually blending and not manufacturing?
A. That is not correct
Q. I’m putting it to you further that the manufacturer provided the scientific formula or basis for the blending?
A. That I’m not aware of. All I know in the course of this Lithovit investigation is that in applying the Lithovit onto the cocoa tree as stated by the lead Scientist, A.A. Afrifa, on the projected final report is to mix 50 grams of Lithovit powder with 1Litre of fertilisers and that should be done at the applying stage at the farm, by using a mix blower or spraying machine.
Q. Sir, as part of your investigation you will find out that PPA will not grant an approval unless its requirements are met, is that correct?
A. Yes my lord, and the only approval given to A2 and A3 is to import and distribute.
Q. Sir, did you also find out that the PPA approval is given by the board of PPA?
Q. Kindly show him exhibit V. Sir, what written is on the exhibit?
A. Public Procurement Authority.
Q. Did you see this letter during your investigations?
Q. That document refers to a board meeting of which the PPA approval is being conveyed by exhibit that was granted. Is that correct sir?
Q. Now sir, I’m putting it to you that the board of PPA granted that approval only after it had satisfied itself that PPA requirements had been met?
A. That is not correct.
Q. On January 11, 2021 you have been in the FFU from its inception and that was about three years ago, is that correct?
Q. Sir, would you recollect the month in which the FFU came into being?
A. We had letters to start but we did not have our own office.
Q. That would make it four years?
A. No, the unit had been created but there was no…
Q. Now sir, the mixture you saw at the warehouse was not tested by you as part of these investigations?
A. Sir you told this court that all the statements in this matter were taken at EOCO, do you still stand by that?
A. My lord, I haven’t said so. If all the statements were taken at EOCO then the CID did not do any work.
Q. Please show him exhibit 67 and 74. Sir, what is the date on exhibit 6?
A. 6th April, 2017.
Q. Now by that date FFU had not assumed investigation?
A. That is so, my lord. My lord, when the police took over the docket at the Station at the CID headquarters and regional capital, we own the docket so for instance this statement by Dr Alfred Arthur, a witness in this case, exhibit 74 and 67, were all obtained at EOCO but the investigator did not write the stations and the units. Those portions were blank and when we sent it to the AG for an advise, we fill in those columns of the names of the station sending the docket.
Q. Sir, please, a look at exhibit 71, 72 and 73 by their dates, FFU purportedly took over the investigation of these?
A. July 12, 2017 is the date FFU commenced investigation into this case. My lord, the reason why we have 29 and 30 August 2017 is that EOCO already had an engagement with the Scientists, whose only two genuine scientific reports in evidence of this case had not given statements at the time EOCO was submitting the docket to the CID.
So they were asked to follow up and obtain statements from the scientific report. That is how come we have August here when in fact EOCO had ceased investigation into this case.
Q. Sir, when you took over investigations, EOCO had already had engagements with staff of COCOBOD and the scientists at CRIG. Is that correct?
Q. Sir, but you took further statements from those scientists that EOCO had precocious engagements with. That is correct?
Q. Similarly, you took statements from staff of COCOBOD that you had previous engagement with?
Q. I’m putting it to you that EOCO, having had an engagement with the staff of GSA, is part of the reason EOCO continue to have engagement allegedly when FFU had allegedly taken over?
A. That is not correct.
Counsel ends cross examination
Court gives opportunity to prosecution for re-examination
Prosecution: You told this court that as part of your investigations you took statements from two farmers on the use of Lithovit Liquid Fertilizer on cocoa plant. One of the statements was tendered as exhibit 69. The other statement is that of Nana Obeng Akrofi, which you already answered a number of questions from. Now take a look at these statements and indicated to the court if this is the statement you took?
Prosecution: My lord, I will like to tender the statement through the witness.
The judge allowed it to be tended.