Opuni trial: Scientific report on fertiliser unreliable, inaccurate – Witness

The accuracy and reliability of the prosecution’s scientific report on lithovit fertiliser in the trial of former Chief Executive of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni and two others became the subject of the evidence-in-chief of the ninth defence witness. 

Dr Opuni and a businessman, Seidu Agongo have been accused by the prosecution for allegedly causing financial loss of more than GH¢271 million to the state in a series of fertiliser deals during his tenure at COCOBOD.

Report

Prepared by a Senior Standards Officer of the Ghana Standards Authority, P. Quartey-Papafio, the scientific report was tendered by the prosecution to firm up its case against the accused persons.

It concluded that “The sample cannot be classified as pesticide, fungicide or fertiliser. The strong smell of ammonia is due to the urea and its application on cocoa seedlings and plants should not be done.

“From the foregoing examination and testing, the sample has been adulterated and did not meet the specifications of the standard. The sample is not recommended for its intended purpose.

The sample ,therefore, cannot be use as foliar nutrient on cocoa from the nursery, growth and yield stages. It is harmful to humans and animals as well as hazardous to water,” it concluded.

Testimony

However, appearing before the High Court presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, the Scientific Expert, Dr Samuel Akoto Bamford, who was being led in evidence by counsel for Agongo, Benson Nustukpui, challenged the analytical technique used in the Quartey-Papafio report, describing it as unclear and ambiguous.

The witness, who holds a PhD in Technical Physics and is the Principal Research Scientist with the School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences, testified that the reporting of the few parameters analysed in the  Quartey-Papafio report was not according to the practice in the analysis of fertiliser.

Asked about his views on the conclusions drawn by the Quartey-Papafio report, Dr Bamford said, “The conclusion of the Quartey-Papafio report is contradictory to their own results. The report cannot be relied upon because the results are inaccurate and the conclusions drawn”.

Counsel further brought out a Material Science Report also on the scientific report covering the test result of lithovit fertiliser and asked the witness about the reference standards and test method for the report.

In his response, the witness said the reference standard and methods used in the report were acceptable because they complied with the prescribed methods for fertiliser as outlined in the Ghana Fertiliser Analytical Manual.

“The analytical technique for each parameter determined was clearly spelt out. And these techniques are the prescribed techniques in the analytical manual,” Dr Bamford added.

He further told the court that the Quartey-Papafio report had no scientific grounding, while the material science report was based on the prescribed standards and methods of analysing fertiliser in accordance with the Ghana Fertiliser and Analytical Manual which complies with the Plants and Fertiliser Act 2010 (ACT 803).

He concluded that in his opinion, the Quartey-Papafio report cannot be used as any basis for disqualifying a sample from being a fertiliser.

Source: graphic.com.gh