The sixth prosecution witness,
in the ongoing trial of former COCOBOD boss and two others, was forced to
recoil as he finally admitted that a signature on a questionable contract, he
initially denied being his, at least on three occasions, is actually his own
signature.
This was after lawyers for the
accused threatened to have the signature of the witness, Peter Osei Amoako,
examined forensically by the Ghana Police Service.
Mr. Osei Amoako, who is the
Director of Finance at the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), first denied his own
signature under cross-examination on Tuesday, November 17, 2020.
The witness was shown a contract
between COCOBOD and Kumark Ghana Limited for the supply of 200,000 litres of
Number 1 Fertilizer in 2017.
Samuel Cudjoe, lead counsel for
the former Chief Executive of COCOBOD, Dr. Stephen Opuni, asked Osei
Amoako if he witnessed the contract dated 17th May 2017.
“My lord, looking at the
contract, I cannot say I witnessed this contract,” he denied.
The witness was then pointed to
a signature on the contract and was asked, “Is that your signature?”.
The witness replied in the negative, “No, my lord”, and went
further to state “to my knowledge I do not remember” COCOBOD ever purchased the
Number 1 Fertilizer under him as the then Acting Director of Finance and now as
the substantive Director of Finance.
Still under cross-examination,
two days later, on November 19, 2020, the witness, Peter Osei Amoako stood on
his ground and discredited the contract document shown to him in court.
Lawyer Samuel Cudjoe at this
juncture decided to orally apply for the document to be referred to the police
CID “for examination to determine whether the signature [on the document] is
that of the witness or is forged”.
Prosecution led by Chief State
Attorney, Evelyn Keelson tried to object to the application by the defence
counsel raising issues with the document. She had claimed the document was not
the same as it was filed in court by the Attorney General’s Department.
The trial judge, Justice
Clemence Jackson Honyenuga, a Supreme Court Judge sitting with additional
responsibility as a High Court judge had to compare the document of prosecution
and that of the defence together with the court’s own.
It was realized that the
documents were the same.
The judge then stood down the
case for about 10 minutes and later announced to the court that the Chief State
Attorney and counsel for Dr. Opuni have consented that the court admits a copy
of the document with the court for the witness to be cross-examined on. It was
marked as Exhibit 52.
Subsequently, the first question
lawyer Samuel Cudjoe asked Osei Amoako was: “Is that your signature on the
Exhibit 52?”
The witness was this time
forthright, “Yes my lord”.
It was later revealed in court
that Exhibit 52 that the witness tried to run away from did not have a critical
document required for any credible contract with a supplier so far as COCOBOD
is concerned.
The contract COCOBOD entered
with Kumark Ghana Limited in 2017 for the supply of Number 1 Fertilizer as
documented in court did not have a CRIG certificate that vouches for the
efficacy of the product being procured as fit for purpose.
Read excerpts of the
cross-examination on Thursday below
Q. Can you have a look at
Exhibit 37, is a letter from Cocobod Isn’t it
A. Yes My Lord.
Q. And is in connection with
what? give us the details.
A. My Lord, this is a
notification of award for the supply of 200,000 of Number 1 Liquid Fertilizer
is dated 17th May 2017 and addressed to the Managing Director, Kumark Ghana
Ltd.
Q. Can you look at this contract
I showed you. Did you say you were not aware of the contract between Cocobod
and Kumark for the supply of the 200,000 litres of the supply of number 1
fertilizer which was shown to you at the last adjourned date in which you said
it was not your signature?
A. My Lord, I said that the
document that was shown to me had some documents attached and there were other
documents that were also not attached. So My Lord, on the basis of what I have
said, I am unable to confirm that this is the document I witnessed.
Q: Is that your signature on the
contract.
A. My Lord, I cannot confirm
because the document I am holding does not contain some of the documents I
expect to see in this contract.
Q. I am putting it to you that
the signature on the contract is your signature.
A: My Lord, on the basis of what
I said, I disagree.
Lawyer Cudjoe for the first
accused:
“My Lord. I hereby apply orally
under your inherent jurisdiction and also to prevent failure of justice that
this honourable court would order that the document which the witness has
claimed contains a signature which is not his should be referred to the Police
CID for forensic examination to determine whether the signature is that of the
witness or is forged. My Lord, this is more so when this document a copy of
which is on the court docket was given to us by the Attorney Generals
Department as part of the discovery process.”
“My Lord, the seriousness of
what has happened is that if indeed, as the witness claims his signature is
forged or it is not his then we cannot vouch for the other documents which the
Prosecution has given to ourselves and your honourable court. If on the other
hand it is his signature on the document then the implication as My Lord has
rightly stated known.”
Evelyn Keelson for Prosecution:
“My Lord, I oppose to this
application. My Lord, my opposition stems from the fact that the application is
not relevant. My Lord and also on the fact that the application is founded on a
wrong premise. My Lord, the witness has stated that he cannot confirm that the
document counsel had given to him is the document he signed because it does not
contain some of the documents he expects to see. He has not said a signature
had been forged. His problem is the nature of the document counsel is seeking
for him to identify.”
“My Lord, on the last adjourned
date and even today counsel had indicated that the document is one of the
documents we disclosed to him as part of the disclosure. I don’t see the basis
of this whole application. They had lost sheets at the end in the last
adjourned date.”
CASE STOOD DOWN
CASE RECALLED
BY COURT: By consent of both the
learned Chief State Attorney and the learned counsel for the 1st Accused and
upon a comparison of the court document to the document shown to the witness,
the document being the court’s copy is hereby admitted into evidence and marked
as Exhibit 52.
Q. Is that your signature on
Exhibit 52
A. Yes My Lord.0
Q. Have a look at this and see
whether it is your signature
A. Yes My Lord
Lawyer Cudjoe. My Lord. I want
to tender it through him
Prosecution. My Lord, we have no objection.
By the court: Document tendered
not objected to admitted and marked as Exhibit 53.
Q. Mr. Osei-Amoako, in your
evidence in chief, you informed this court that the Chief Executive always
signs contracts for Cocobod, if he is around and available.
A: Yes My Lord.
Q. But the contracts for fertilizers
are prepared by the Procurement Department and vetted by the Legal Department
A. Yes My Lord.
Q . So that have a look at
Exhibit 52 which is a contract you also witnessed. I believe Just like Exhibit
53, you would have assumed that the Procurement Unit which prepared the
contract and which was vetted by legal would have complied with all the
requirements of the contract
A. Yes My Lord.
Q. Do you have a CRIG
certificate attached
A. My Lord. I do not have a CRIG
certificate attached to this document My Lord, I believe the certificate is
available
Q. But definitely your Audit
Department together with the user departments namely, CODAPEC and HI-TECH would
definitely ensure that at the time of delivery the fertilizers would be fit for
use Isn’t it
A. My Lord, the inspection team
will make sure the fertilizer has not expired.
Q. Mr. Osei-Amoako, when letters
are written for negotiations by Procurement for a price quotation, the letters
are written in bulk to all companies who are to supply fertilizers. Isn’t it.
A. My Lord, letters for
quotations are written to companies whose fertilizers are tested by CRIG for
the minimum two-year period to submit quotations.
Q. And when the letters are
written the letters request for quotation for a specified quantity isn’t It
A. My Lord, I have to abreast
myself first but I believe that is so.
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 fertilizer supply contracts
between 2014 and 2016.
They have pleaded not guilty to
all the charges and are on self-recognition bail of GH¢300,000 each.
No comments