Dr Stephen Opuni
Dr. Samuel Akoto Bamford, a Principal Research Scientist at the School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences, has described as “unreliable,” a report submitted by a Senior Standards Officer of the Ghana Standards Authority, Peter Quartey-Papafio on Lithovit liquid fertiliser which is the subject matter of the trial of former Chief Executive Officer of Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Dr. Stephen Opuni and businessman, Seidu Agongo.
The researcher who appeared as the ninth witness for Seidu Agongo, in his evidence-in-chief, questioned even the reference number used for the test, stating that “the reference number stated in the Quartey-Papafio report is a standard reference for drinking water.”
He also pointed out that the reporting of the few parameters analysed were not according to the practice in the analysis of fertiliser.
Dr. Opuni, Seidu Agongo, and Agricult Ghana Limited are standing trial for 27 charges of causing financial loss to the state, defrauding by false pretences, conspiracy to commit crime, abetment of crime, money laundering, corruption by public officer and contravention of the PPA Act.
Together, they are accused of causing a financial loss of over GH¢217 million to the state through the sale and purchase of the controversial Lithovit Liquid Fertiliser which the prosecution says was never tested.
They have been on trial before a High Court in Accra since March 2018.
Quartey-Papafio Report
The Quartey-Papafio report which was tendered by the prosecution, indicated that the sample of the Lithovit fertiliser tested cannot be classified as pesticide, fungicide or fertiliser.
It said, “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 report concluded that “The sample, therefore, cannot be used 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.”
*Counter Perspective*
But Dr. Samuel Akoto Bamford in his testimony before the court presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court Judge, indicated that the report on the fertiliser cannot be trusted as it did not follow the standard procedure for the testing of fertilisers.
He said the standard cited in the report was GS 175:2017, a standard on drinking water quality hence the test methods can therefore not be applied directly to the analysis of fertilisers as they are unsuitable for fertiliser analysis.
“Water and fertilizer have different sample matrix (nature), analytical parameters, concentration levels, and regulatory specifications. Different test methods and procedures are consequently required for fertilizer analysis,” the witness indicated in his report.
Dr. Akoto Bamford further pointed out that the analytical techniques used are unclear as they are shrouded in over-generalisation as “chemical/chromatography/spectrometer”.
“The standard practice is to indicate the test method and specific technique used in analyzing each of the parameters or nutrient element.
That was not done in this test report. The results reported were incomplete for fertilizer analysis. Values were determined for only Calcium, Magnesium, and Urea. It missed out on other primary, secondary, and micronutrients associated with most fertilizers,” he added.
The witness, however, told the court that the results presented on the fertiliser in the report from the Material Science Laboratory of the Ghana Standards Authority are reliable.
He said the standards and test methods employed are suitable and prescribed for fertilizers analysis, adding that the number of parameters determined were sufficient, and the conclusions drawn identified the sample as a fertilizer.
By Gibril Abdul Razak
This post was originally published on here
