The 6th prosecution witness, Peter Osei Amoako, has been exposed by counsel for Seidu Agongo the CEO of Agricult Ghana Limited, for creating the impression that correspondence between COCOBOD and Public Procurement Authority (PPA) in February 2014 only centered on Lithovit Liquid Fertilizer.

It was revealed in court that COCOBOD’s letter to PPA dated 25th February 2014 seeking approval to sole source fertilizers for cocoa HITEC programme 2013/2014 had five other products/fertilizers listed.

The reply from PPA to COCOBOD also made mention of all the six fertilizers which included: 700,000 litres of Asaasewura from Wienco Ghana Ltd at the cost of GHC64,883,000; 500,000 litres of Cocoa Master for GHC50,120,000; 400,000 litres of Cocoa Feed at the stated price of GHC43,468,000; Sildaco 10:10:10; and 700,000 litres of Lithovit fertilizer at the cost of GHc43,120.000

But in his evidence in chief early November, Peter Osei Amoako was mute on the other products and presented the case as if the letter only talked about Lithovit fertilizer.

“Sir, it was erroneous to create the impression that Exhibit V had covered only the Lithovit liquid fertilizer you testified earlier in this court. I am putting that to you,” lawyer Nutifafa Nutsukpui pointed out but the witness said that was not the impression he sought to create.

The witness however admitted that the procurement of Lithovit Liquid Fertilizer, as well as the five others, were approved by the Board of COCOBOD and the Public Procurement Authority.

Value for money audit the same as the value for money analysis

Meanwhile, Peter Osei Amoako who is the Director of Finance at COCOBOD has rejected claims by counsel for Seido Agongo that there there is a difference between the value for money audit and value for money analysis.

According to him, since the two contain three key elements they are the same.

“My Lord, when you do value for money. My Lord, in most of the occasions you are looking at the “3 Es” that is effectiveness, efficiency, and economy. And My Lord, when you do value for money audit you see all these factors there and when you do value for money analysis you see the same factors.”

The lawyer then asked him, “Sir, but there is a difference between the two”.

Peter Osei Amoak responded, “My Lord, I do not see any difference.”

Former CEO of Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Dr. Stephen Opuni, businessman Seidu Agongo, and Agricult Ghana Company Limited, are facing 27 charges of willfully causing financial loss of ¢217 million to the state, through three separate fertiliser supply contracts between 2014 and 2016.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the charges and are on self-recognition bail of ¢300,000 each.

find excerpts of the cross-examination below

Q: Now. was there a board in place at Cocobod for the year 2014

A: Yes My Lord

Q: Will you remember when this board was inaugurated or formed

A: My Lord, I do not remember.

Q: But by February 2014 Cocobod had a Board of Directors in place. Would you remember

A: My Lord, I do not remember but I believe Cocobod should have aboard.

Q: Sir, in your review of the documentation in respect of the matters on which you are testifying in this court. Did you come across a consolidated budget for the year 2014?

A: Yes My Lord.

Q: What about a procurement plan for the year 2014.

A: Yes My Lord.

Q: And from the records both the Consolidated budget for 2014 as well as the procurement plan for 2014 had been approved by the Board of Directors of Cocobod. Is that correct?

A: Yes My Lord.

Q: Sir, by practice Cocobod will not pay for goods or services that have not been captured by the procurement plan or otherwise approved by the Board of Directors That is correct.

A: Yes. My Lord.

Q: Sir, would you recall how many members were on the Board of Cocobod in 2014.

….

A: My Lord, the Entity will look at the list of items and committees that had been set up to evaluate tenders that Cocobod has done and provide recommendations

Q: Provide recommendations for what purpose

A: The recommendations are provided on the reports submitted by the various units before they go to PPA

Q: Now Sir, by your position you are now a member of
the Entity Tender Committee at Cocobod. are you not

A: Yes My Lord

Q: Have you had the chance to review any of the previous minutes kept by the Entity Tender Committee as part of your work.

A: No My Lord

Q: But the committee on which you serve now keeps minutes. Is that correct?

A: Yes My Lord.

Q: Sir, do you know whether, in 2014, 2015 and 2016 Cocobod had the Entity Tender Committee.

A: My Lord, there should be one.

Q: Sir, you see by a minute of meeting dated 5th March, 2014, and referenced as GCB/PU/ETCN4/99, the Entity Tender Committee of Cocobod granted Management of Cocobod approval to procure fertilizers including Lithovit Liquid Fertilizer through sole-sourcing Are you aware.

A: No My Lord.

Q: Again Sir, by minute of the Entity Tender Committee of Cocobod dated 12th January, 2015 and referenced GCB/PU/ETC/63N1/35, the Entity Tender of Cocobod granted Management of Cocobod approval to procure inputs for the cocoa HI-TECH and CODAPEC program through sole-sourcing including Lithovit liquid fertilizer Are you aware Sir

A: No My Lord

Q: And Sir, by yet another minute of the Entity Tender Committee of Cocobod dated 18th November. 2015 and referenced GCB/PU/ETC/63N1/44, the Entity Tender Committee of Cocobod granted Management approval to procure fertilizers including the Lithovit liquid fertilizer through sole sourcing. Are you, aware Sir?

A: No My Lord

Q: Sir, you see the Entity Tender Committee is actually the one that must approve the method or mode of procurement at Cocobod. Is that not correct.

A: My Lord. at any point in time Cocobod determines the method based on the products and the usage.

Q: And Sir, to your knowledge, does the Entity Tender Committee play any role in that determination by Cocobod.

A: My Lord by the time it gets to ETC a procurement plan has already been approved. And My Lord. if I quite remember I don’t know whether sole sourcing should go to Entity but per what you are reading that is what was done.

Q: Sir, does the ETC plays any role in the procurement plan process as far as you are aware

A: My Lord. I said that the ETC looks at various evaluation reports that have been done by
committees set up by Cocobod and make their recommendations

Q: So they do not play any role as far as you are aware in the procurement plan process Is that correct

A: My Lord, the plan is approved by Cocobod.

Q: Sir, as the Director of Finance who has responsibility for the procurement unit, do you know whether in the process of extracting the procurement plan from the approved consolidated budget the ETC plays any role

A: My Lord. I said that when the procurement plan is extracted from the consolidated budget. the plan will go to the board, the board will refer it to the procurement subcommittee of the board, the procurement subcommittee will prepare a report to the board for consideration and approval

Q: Sir, you told this court that Cocobod wrote to the Secretary of Cabinet through the Minister for Finance seeking approval to sole source fertilizers for cocoa HI-TECH program for 2013 / 2014 Is that correct Sir.

A: Yes My Lord

Q: Now, did you come across a letter dated 17th February 2014 under the hand of one Roger K. Angsomwine addressed to the Minister for Finance

A: No My Lord.

Q: And Sir, are you aware that in that letter the secretary to the Cabinet conveyed the Executive approval for the Minister of Finance to apply to the PPA to procure the products for the cocoa HI-TECH program and CODAPEC program for the year 2013/2014 through the sole sourcing procurement method.

A: My Lord, I am not aware of that.

Q: You see it was the Minister for Finance at the time who submitted a memorandum to Cabinet seeking approval to sole source inputs for the cocoa HI-TECH and CODAPEC programs for the year 2013/2014. Are you aware Sir.

A: No My Lord.

Q: Now, Cocobod used to be under the Ministry of Finance, is that correct.

A: Yes My Lord.

Q: And you see the letter conveying the Cabinet or Executive approval to the Minister for Finance to procure inputs for the cocoa HI-TECH and CODAPEC programs for the year 2013/2014 was not even copied to Cocobod. Are you aware Sir?

A: My Lord, I am not aware.

Q: Kindly show him Exhibit V. Sir, you tendered Exhibit V as the letter by which PPA granted Cocobod approval to procure Lithovit liquid fertilizer in March 2014. Is that correct?

A: Yes My Lord.

Q: Now, please confirm to the honourable court that in all there are six products listed in that letter.

A: Yes My Lord, there are six products.

Q: On the first line the product listed there is Asaasewura against the name of Wienco Ghana Ltd. Is that correct?

A: Yes My Lord

Q: What is the quantity stated against that product

A: 700,000

Q: And for how much.

A: GHC 64,883,000

Q: Please confirm also that the next product in that list is cocoa master

A: Yes My Lord

Q: What is the stated quantity and price for the cocoa master

A: The quantity is 500.000 and the cost is GHC50,120,000.00.

Q: Sir, and the next product is cocoa feed and the quantity listed against it is 400,000. Is that correct?

A: Yes My Lord

Q: Sir, what is the stated price for the cocoa feed.

A: GHC 43,468,000

Q: And Sir the next two items are Sildaco 10:10:10 and Sildaco 6:0:20. Is that correct?

A: Yes My Lord

Q: And the last product in that letter is the Lithovit fertilizer. That is also correct.

A: Yes My Lord.

Q: And what is the price listed against the Lithovit liquid fertilizer.

A: My Lord, the quantity is 700,000 the cost is GHc43,120.000

Q: Sir, it was erroneous to create the impression that Exhibit V had covered only the Lithovit liquid fertilizer you testified earlier in this court. I am putting that to you.

A: My Lord. I did not create any impression My Lord. when I tendered in this exhibit, I mentioned that the letter is from PPA I mentioned the date and I also mentioned the header that it is headed so so and so and then made reference to the fact that it was a response to Cocobod letter dated 27th February, 2014. And then I mentioned the signatories of the letter and who the letter was sent to at Ghana Cocobod

Q: Now Sir, you told this court also that by Exhibit P. the PPA wrote to Cocobod requesting value for money audit. Did you say that-

A: Yes My Lord

Q: And you said also that even though you did not see any value for money audit report, you saw a response from Cocobod to PPA. Is that also correct Sir.

A: Yes My Lord.

Q: Now Sir, I am putting it to you that PPA never demanded a value for money audit contrary to what you told this court.

A: My Lord, I will like to have the exhibit. My Lord, the Exhibit P that I have is dated 20th February 2014, and is headed re-application for approval to sole source fertilizer for the cocoa HI-TECH program — 201312014. (witness reads Exhibit P).

Q: And Sir. you are an experience Finance expert, you do know that there is a difference between value for money audit and value for money analysis.

A: My Lord, when you do value for money. My Lord, in most of the occasions you are looking at the “3 Es” that is effectiveness, efficiency and economy. And My Lord, when you do value for money audit you see all these factors there and when you do value for money analysis you see the same factors.

Q: Sir, but there is a difference between the two

A: My Lord, I do not see any difference.

Q: But for the avoidance of doubt Exhibit P does not use the phrase value for money audit.

A: Yes My Lord.

Q: And Sir, you see in Exhibit P also Cocobod never said that it carried out a value for money audit That is correct.

A: Yes My Lord.