It has been revealed in court that out of about five companies that had similar transactions with COCOBOD, only Agricult Ghana Limited, owned by Seidu Agongo, was singled out for prosecution by the state.
Agricult, producers of Lithovit liquid fertilizer, and Seidu Agongo are being trialed together with former Chief Executive of COCOBOD, Dr. Stephen Opuni, for allegedly breaching the Procurement Acts among other charges since 2018.
But it emerged in court on April 8 that companies like Sidalco, Wienco, Chemico, Louis Dreyfus went through similar procurement procedures as Agricult but none of them is in court.
As transpired in court, all COCOBOD’s cover letters to PPA between 2014 and 2016 seeking approval to purchase fertilizers had other fertilizers in addition to lithovit that were listed.
Also, COCOBOD’s letters to Agricult to purchase lithovit and to the other companies bear the same date.
Interestingly, almost all the responses from these companies have similar dates.
A former Director of Finance at COCOBOD, Mr. Charles Tetteh Dodoo contended that if it is the case of prosecution that Agricult breached the Procurement Act, then the other companies should also be prosecuted.
“If you follow the prosecution position that exhibit T which is the responses from the third accused persons was in breach of PPA regulations then exhibits 80,82,83 and 84 which were responses from Wienco, Sidalco, Chemico and Louis Grefus must also be in breach of the PPA regulations” the witness was asked under cross examination by counsel for Seidu Agongo, lawyer Nutifafa Nutsukpui.
Mr. Dodoo who is the first Defence witness answered, “yes my lord”.
He also replied in the affirmative, yes, when asked if so as far as he knows the only company that has been charged of the breach of the procurement law is Agricult.
Nonetheless, the witness who served on the board of COCOBOD for 8 years and its Entity Tender Committee during the procurements of the various fertilizers, insisted that all the contracts with the companies including Agricult followed due procedures, stressing no procurement law was breached.
Mr. Dodoo further explain:
“As I stated, those who got copied below on the distribution list, the last person on it is the procurement manager and above it is national project coordinator ie CODAPEC/ HITEC. At the time of exhibit N, COCOBOD had technical unit called CODAPEC/ HITEC unit. This unit was reporting directly to the Deputy Chief Executive A and QC. Codapec/ hitec units was the link to chemicals supply. They deal with the suppliers so they obtain the price quotation from the suppliers. They also advise management on the quantity and types of products to buy. So they give this input, the name of the fertiliser, the type of the fertiliser, the unit price and the quantity that may be required for a particular year. So this input from codapec/ hitec is taken over by the procurement unit. So with that, procurement writes to PPA but the letter will be signed by the CEO. That is why in the list we have procurement manager writing and giving codapec a copy. When PPA gives approval, procurement have to prepare notification for contract award.”
The witness spoke about the role of COCOBOD’s entity tender Committee
“The entity tender Committee had the responsibility to consider and approved all procurement and major contracts. For instance, a contract that has been advertised by the panel will come to the Committee for consideration. And by law, there are some contracts which need to go to PPA. All contracts whether PPA approved or panel evaluation will all be brought to the entity tender Committee.”
He also told the court that he doesn’t remember seeing Dr. Opuni attending any of the meetings held by the financial sub Committee of the board.
Mr. Dodoo further stated that COCOBOD did not receive a single complaint from any farmer about lithovit neither was there any adverse findings against the product.
Dr. Opuni, Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana Limited are facing about 25 charges, including defrauding by false pretences, willfully causing financial loss to the state, corruption by public officers and contravention of the Public Procurement Act.
Find excerpts of Friday’s proceeding below
Q : so the names of companies in exbit 76 to 81 are the same on the list provided in the exhibit N which they send to PPA seeking approval.
Ans : yes my lord
Q: please, kindly look at exits 76,77,78,79 , 80 and exhibit X. Though these letters were addressed to different companies it was written on the same day 25th February as exhibit x.
Ans: yes my lord.
Q : can you also look at exhibit 83 from Wienco and confirm if it is a response to exhibit 76.
Ans : yes my lord, exhibit 83 is a response to existing 76.
Q: now exhibit N is a typical letter COCOBOD will send to PPA seeking approval to sole source.
Ans : yes my lord.
Q : Sir, in seeking PPA approval to sole source cocoa board only have to state the total cost of which it is seeking to purchase a particular product as it is in exhibit N.
Ans : yes my lord
Q : Kindly take a look at exhibit 82 from Louis Dreyfus and confirm that it is a response to COCOBOD letter exhibit 77.
Ans : yes my lord. Exhibit 82 is a response to exhibit 77
Q: sir exhibit x ,76,77,78 and 80 which were all from COCOBOD were written after the date on exhibit N .
Ans : yes my lord
Q: cocoa board did not need to state the delivery period, delivery site and duration.
A: That is also correct.
Q: sir ,is it the case that COCOBOD depends on the information from codapec/ hitec to write exhibit N to PPA.
Ans : yes my lord
Q: so in effect, COCOBOD wrote to PPA as per exhibit N with information of the prices of the products it was seeking approval for before writing to the companies as per exhibits x,77,78,79 and 80.That is correct.
Ans : no my lord, that is not correct.
Q ; what is the date on exhibit N?
Ans: it is dated 19th February.
Q: and that is the letter COCOBOD sent to PPA seeking approval to sole source.
Ans : yes my lord.
Q: what is the date on exhibit 76,77,78 and 80.
Ans : 28th February, 2014. As I stated, those who got copied below on the distribution list, the last person on it is the procurement manager and above it is national project coordinator ie codapec/ hitec. At the time of exhibit N , COCOBOD had technical unit called codapec/ hitec unit. This unit was reporting directly to the deputy Chief Executive A and QC. Codapec/ hitec unit was the link to chemicals supply. They deal with the suppliers so they obtain the price quotation from the suppliers. They also advise management on the quantity and types of products to buy. So they give this input ,the name of the fertiliser, the type of the fertiliser, the unit price and the quantity that may be required for a particular year.so this input from codapec/ hitec is taken over by the procurement unit. So with that, procurement writes to PPA but the letter will be signed by the CEO. That is why in the list we have procurement manager writing and giving codapec a copy. When PPA gives approval, procurement have to prepare notification for contract award.
Q: and also exhibit T ,82,83,84 and 85 which were responses from companies to COCOBOD’s letter on the 25th February 2014 also exceed the date on exhibit N.
Ans : yes my lord
Q: so after exhibit N, and in preparation for the issuance for the notification of contracts award, cocoa writes exhibit X,76 77,78,79 and 80 to the suppliers listed in exhibit N. Is that the case
Ans : yes my lord, certainly yes. let me add that, when you look at these exhibits they have all got the heading “request for quotations “. The letter asked for quotations, it further requested for more information which includes delivery periods, delivery site and terms of payments. This information is not needed for PPA approval. This is required for the preparation of the notification for contracts award. Further more, because these had nothing to do with codapec and hitec, they were not copied.
Q : sir on the 6th of November, you stated that the prosecutions case which is the first accused response to exhibit X was in breach of the PPA law because it was written after the PPA approval was not correct.
Ans : yes my lord
Q: sir, are you aware or have you heard of any case brought against wienco for writing exhibit 83?
Ans: no my lord
Q: are you aware of any case at all in the PPA laws as brought against Louis Dreyfus for writing exhibit 82?
Ans : no my lord
Q: how about a case against sidalco for writing exhibit 81 and 82 to cocoa board?
And : no my lord
Q: if you follow the prosecution position that exhibit T which is the responses from the third accused person was in breach of PPA regulations then exhibit 80,82,83 and 84 which were responses from Wienco, sidalco, chemico and Louis Dreyfus must also be in breach of the PPA.
Ans : yes my lord
Q : kindly take a look at exhibit 84 from chemico and confirm to the court is the same letter attached to exhibit 92 which is the COCOBOD’s contract with chemico.
Ans: my Lord it is the same
Q: and have you heard of any case brought against chemico for writing exhibit 84.
Ans : no my lord
Q; so as far as you know the only company that has been charged of the breach of the procurement law in the responses written to COCOBOD on the 28th February 2014 is Agricult?
Ans: yes my lord
Q : kindly look at exhibit 85 which is from sidalco limited and confirm to the court that it is the same as attached to exhibit 93 being a contract between COCOBOD and sidalco limited.
Ans : yes my lord.
Q: and sir, also take a look at exhibit 82 which is from Louis Dreyfus and confirm to the court that it is the same as attached to exhibit 94 which is a contract between COCOBOD and Louis Dreyfus.
Ans : yes my lord it is so.
Q: sir on the 17th of March 2022, you told this court that the board approved the budget after the board considered the report on the boards sub Committee on finance.
Ans : yes my lord
Source: Daily Mail GH
Email Daily Mail GH: stories@dailymailgh.com or
Whatsapp: +233(0)509928122
