The Defense in the ongoing trial of Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni,
a former Chief Executive of COCOBOD and Seidu Agongo, the CEO of
Agricult Ghana Limited today suffered the biggest blow yet, when the
court rejected their attempt to tender into evidence the report written
by the committee set up by the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG)
to investigate a missing document which the defense says is germane to
their case.
Benson Nutsukpui, the lawyer for Mr Seidu Agongo, asked to tender the
committees’ final report on its investigation into evidence through Dr
Alfred Arthur, who is the Acting Head of the Soil Science Division at
CRIG and a witness for the Prosecution.
The Prosecution, led by Mrs Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa, the Director of
Public Prosecutions (DPP) objected the tendering, saying that the
investigative committee was not set up by an order of the court. Its
investigation was to locate a missing document which has nothing to do
with the substantive matters of the trial.
She added that the report by its nature is only a hearsay statement
under section 116 of evidence act because it was written by persons
other than Dr Alfred Arthur. He was also not part of the committee nor
called to testify before it, hence, he doesn’t know about the work of
the committee and cannot be asked to speak on matters contained in the
report.
The DPP concluded her objection by saying that the Defense had failed
to establish enough foundation to tender the report into evidence.
Justice Clemence Honyenugah, the presiding judge, agreed with and
upheld the objection raised by the Prosecution, thereby rejecting that
report which the Defense sought to tender into evidence.
He said it is indeed the case that the CRIG committee, whose report is
in contention, was not set up by a court order but by CRIG and it will
be unfair for it to be admitted through Dr Alfred Arthur. What the
defense should have done was to tender the report into evidence through
one of the three members of the committee so that the Prosecution will
have a fair opportunity to cross-examine that committee member.
He ended by saying that the fact that a document had been filled before
the court did not mean they could be admitted into evidence without
regard to the rules on how to properly do so. I’ll allow the objection,
he said, and decline to allow the tendered through Dr Alfred Arthur. The
objection is therefore upheld.
The missing document in question, which warranted the formation of a
committee at CRIG is a letter, supposedly written by CRIG and sent to
Agricult Ghana Limited to partner with CRIG in providing a training
programme for farmers and extension officers on the use of Lithovit
fertiliser.
The main issue of contention between the two sides in the trial is
whether the fertilizer used for the training programme was the same one
tested in 2013 by Dr Alfred Arthur, and more importantly, whether it was
liquid or powdery in form.
The defense has maintained that, that singular missing document will
prove that the fertilizer in question is liquid despite the testimony
given by Dr Alfred Arthur that what he tested was in powdery form.
After months of investigations, the CRIG committee concluded that the
supposed document could not be found and filled its final report at the
court.
Meanwhile, the court had had to adjourn sitting on a number of
occasions at the request of the defense on grounds they (the defense)
were waiting for the committee to finish its work, which they argued is
key to their case, only to have the court today reject the report.