It has emerged at the High Court in Accra that fertiliser test report being relied upon by the Prosecution in the ongoing trial of former Chief Executive of Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni and two others “has no scientific grounding.”
It also came to the attention of the Court that, the said test result produced by one Quartey-Papafio, a scientist was “unreliable” and the conclusion was “contradictory.”
Dr. Samuel Akoto Bamford, a Principal Research Scientist with School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences – Atomic Energy Ghana made this known to the Court presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court judge on Monday, January 13, 2025.
While testifying as the ninth Defence Witness for Businessman, Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited (2nd and 3rd Accused persons respectively), Dr Bamford said said though the Material Science Report is acceptable and reliable, Quartey-Papafio’s Report being used by the Prosecution “cannot be relied upon.”
Being led by Benson Nutsupkui Esq., lead counsel for the second and third accused, he apprised the Court on the grounds and methods used in both results he analyzed – which reports he tendered in evidence.
Dr. Opuni and Mr Agongo are facing 27 charges, including defrauding by false pretences, willfully causing financial loss to the State to the tune of GHc217 million, money laundering, corruption by a public officer and contravention of the Public Procurement Act.
They have both pleaded not guilty to the charges and are on a GH¢300,000.00 self-recognizance bail each.
So far, both Prosecution and Dr Opuni have closed their respective cases after calling seven and 10 Witnesses respectively.
While Businessman Seidu Agongo and his company Agricult Ghana Limited are in the witness box parading their witnesses with Dr Samuel Bamford, their ninth Witness.
Unreliable test results
While speaking to the first issue raised in his report about the Quartey Papafio’s report which has been referenced by the Prosecution for their case, the Witness said, “the reference number stated in the Quartey Papafio report is a standards reference for drinking water.”
However, he explained that, “Water and fertiliser have different nature or matrix.”
It is the case of the Witness that, “water and fertiliser are not the same kind of sample so you (scientist) cannot use a standard and procedure for analysing water for fertiliser without serious modifications.”
Dr Bamford also told the Court that, though the Quartey Papafio report use the standard technique which cited – standard GS175 which was done in 2017, yet it was for drinking water quality and that Quartey-Papafio’s analytical technique used “were unclear and ambiguous.”
In his analysis of the result of the Quartey Papafio report, the Witness again said, the Quartey Papafio’s report “presented only three parameters – Caladium, magnesium and urea.
But, these parameters he said are either “insufficient or incomplete for any fertiliser analysis.”
“The reporting of the few parameters analysed were not according to the practice in the analysis of fertiliser,” the ninth Witness for Seidu Agongo and Agricult told told the Court.
Explaining his views about the conclusion drawn by the Quartey-Papafio’s report relied on by the Prosecution, the Witness said, “The conclusion of the Quartey-Papafio’s report is contradictory to their own results.”
“My conclusion is that, the result presented are unreliable because the test methods employed are unsuitable for fertiliser,” he said.
Asked to tell the Court if in the determination of whether a product is a fertiliser or not, Quartey-Papafio’s report is capable of being relied upon, the Witness answered in the negative.
“It cannot be relied upon because the results are inaccurate and the conclusion wrong,” the Witness told the Court.
Material Science Report reliable
On his analysis of the Material Science Report which is being relied upon by the defence, the Witness said it proved the reliable outcome.
“The reference standards and methods used in the Material Science report, the Appendix 2, are acceptable because they complied with the prescribed method of fertilisers as outlined in the Ghana Fertiliser Analytical Manual.”
In his explanation to the Court on his report, he said, “The analytical technique for each parameter determined was clearly spelt out and these techniques are the prescribed techniques in the analytical manual.”
Again, Dr Bamford, who said he supervises PhD students said, “the result presented by the Material Science Laboratory covered the parameters expected for fertilisers and they were able to determine about eight of these parameters in the report.”
“On this basis, the results they obtained they concluded by identifying the sample the analysed as a fertiliser,” he told the Court on his views on the conclusion of the Material Science Report which he analysed.
“My conclusion is that, the results presented in the report from the materials science laboratory are reliable, because the standards and test method are the prescribed standard and suitable for fertiliser test.
“Again, the number of parameters determined were sufficient and their conclusion identified the sample as a fertiliser,” the expert Witness told the Court.
He explained to the Court that, the Quartey-Papafio’s report “has no scientific grounding.”
“The material science is based on the prescribed standards and methods for analysing fertiliser in accordance with the Ghana Fertiliser Analytical Manual which is in compliance with the Plant and fertiliser Act (Act 803).
It is has testimony to the Court that, “From my evaluation of the Quartey-Papafio’s report, it cannot be used, in my opinion as basis for disqualifying any product as fertiliser.”
source: www.kumasimail.com
