It has emerged at the High Court in Accra that the fertilizer test report being relied upon by the prosecution in the ongoing trial of the 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 the School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences at 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 defense witness for businessman Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited (the second and third accused persons, respectively), Dr. Bamford said that 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 pretenses, willfully causing financial loss to the state to the tune of GH₵217 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 self-recognizance bail each.
So far, both the prosecution and Dr. Opuni have closed their respective cases after calling seven and ten witnesses, respectively.
Meanwhile, businessman Seidu Agongo and his company, Agricult Ghana Limited, are in the witness box, parading their witnesses with Dr. Samuel Bamford being their ninth witness.
Unreliable Test Results
While speaking to the first issue raised in his report about 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 fertilizer have different natures or matrices.”
It is the case of the witness that “water and fertilizer are not the same kind of sample, so you (scientist) cannot use a standard and procedure for analyzing water for fertilizer without serious modifications.”
Dr. Bamford also told the court that, though Quartey-Papafio’s report used the standard technique cited — standard GS175, which was done in 2017 — it was for drinking water quality. He added that Quartey-Papafio’s analytical technique used “was unclear and ambiguous.”
In his analysis of the result of the Quartey-Papafio report, the witness said that the report “presented only three parameters — calcium, magnesium, and urea.”
But these parameters, he said, were either “insufficient or incomplete for any fertilizer analysis.”
“The reporting of the few parameters analysed was not according to the practice in the analysis of fertilizer,” the ninth witness for Seidu Agongo and Agricult told the court.
Explaining his views about the conclusion drawn by Quartey-Papafio’s report relied on by the prosecution, the witness said, “The conclusion of Quartey-Papafio’s report is contradictory to their own results.”
“My conclusion is that the result presented is unreliable because the test methods employed are unsuitable for fertilizer,” he said.
Asked to tell the court if Quartey-Papafio’s report is capable of being relied upon in the determination of whether a product is a fertilizer or not, 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 defense, the witness said it produced reliable results.
“The reference standards and methods used in the Material Science report, in Appendix 2, are acceptable because they complied with the prescribed method for fertilizers as outlined in the Ghana Fertilizer Analytical Manual,” he explained to the court.
He continued, “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 supervises PhD students, said, “The result presented by the Material Science Laboratory covered the parameters expected for fertilizers, and they were able to determine about eight of these parameters in the report.”
“On this basis, the results they obtained led them to conclude by identifying the sample they analyzed as a fertilizer,” he told the court regarding the conclusion of the Material Science Report.
“My conclusion is that the results presented in the report from the Materials Science Laboratory are reliable because the standards and test methods are the prescribed standards and suitable for fertilizer tests.”
“Again, the number of parameters determined were sufficient, and their conclusion identified the sample as a fertilizer,” the expert witness told the court.
He explained to the court that Quartey-Papafio’s report “has no scientific grounding.”
“The Material Science report is based on the prescribed standards and methods for analysing fertiliser in accordance with the Ghana Fertilizer Analytical Manual, which is in compliance with the Plant and Fertilizer Act (Act 803),” he said.
“It is his testimony to the court that “from my evaluation of Quartey-Papafio’s report, it cannot be used, in my opinion, as a basis for disqualifying any product as a fertilizer.”
