Lithovit chemical component too low, says witness in Opuni trial

A lecturer at the University of Ghana, Department of Chemistry, Dr Emmanuel Yaw Osei-Twum has told an Accra High Court that the chemical composition in lithovit fertiliser that was bought by Ghana Cocoa Board under the leadership of Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni is too low.
He said this while being led by Evelyn Keelson, Chief State Attorney of the Attorney’s General’s (A-G) Department, to give his evidence in chief before the court, presided by Justice Clemence Honyenuga on Wednesday.
According to him, the chemicals that constitute the liquid fertiliser that was supplied by Agricult Ghana limited was not meant for cocoa plants but for vegetables, fruits and rice farms.
Although his assertion was that a research was conducted and arrived at that conclusion, Samuel Cudjoe and Nutifafa Nutsukpui, lawyers for the accused persons, Dr Opuni and SeiduAgongo and his company, Agricult Ghana Limited, said there is no evidence to prove it.
According to the lawyers, the said report had no names of the purported scientists nor their signature to that effect, hence the witness has lied to the court.
The following is how events unfolded at the court, with the questions (Q) and answers (A):
Q. Can you give your full name to the court once again?
A. Emmanuel Yaw Osei-Twum
Q. What work do you do please?
A. Lecturer at the UG, Chemistry Department and a visiting scholar, at the rank of Associate Professor.
Q. Can you tell the court how long you have worked with the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana?
A. I am in my sixth year.
Q. Specifically in May 2017, where were you working?
A. I was at the Department of Chemistry.
Q. Can you please tell the court briefly what your qualifications are?
A. I had my first degree in Chemistry from the University of Ghana. I have a Second Degree (Masters) from McMaster University, Canada. I had my PhD from the same university and for my experience I worked in Canada, Saudi Arabia and in Ghana, at the University of Ghana.
Q. Now, Doc., in May 2017, what did you do in respect of Lithovit fertiliser?
A. In April 2017, we got a quest from EOCO to analysis a sample of a product for them. It was a liquid simple. In May, we carried out the analysis.
Q. What kind of analysis were you supposed to conduct?
A. We were to determined the constituents and to find out how much of each was in the sample. We were also to tell EOCO whether the sample was fertiliser.
Q. Now tell the court how did you receive this sample?
A. The sample came in a plastic bottle labelled with EOCO’s sample number and they labelled it in the name ‘Lithovit’.
Q. Now, tell the court what you did?
A. We prepared the sample by treating it with acid and submitted to that what we call Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy. The rest was calculating how much each constituent was present in the substance.
Q. Can you explain the atomic spectroscopy in very simple terms?
A. Let me take Sodium. Sodium can exist as an atom and it has what we call the nucleus and electrons. The electrons occupy certain levels and if I apply the electrons to the right energy, they can jump from one level to another. And they do this by absorbing that energy. That energy that is absorbed can be detected. And that is how sodium in the sample can be detected. The amount of sodium will depend on what is in the sample. That is how we actually measure every element that will be there.
Q. Can you tell the court the findings after you conducted the analysis of the sample submitted to you by EOCO?
A. We found Calcium Carbonate at 3.22%. We also found Magnesium Carbonate at 0.48%. Other compounds were very low in amount.
Q. Now, Doc., have a look at the document, exhibit H, and tell the court what it is?
A. The document is a report we issued to EOCO.
Q. Who conducted the analysis?
A. The lead analyst was Prof Augustine Kwame Donkor and myself, Dr Emmanuel.
Q. And who wrote the report?
A. Prof Donkor and myself
Q. Who signed the report?
A. The report was signed by the Head of Chemistry Department.
Q. What is the name?
A. Prof Luis Doamekpor.
Q. Can you turn to page 6 of the report and explain to the court, the finding contained in table 2?
A. The first column on the left is labelled parameters. These were what we analysed for.
Q. Why did you do analysis for these parameters?
A. We were supposed to determine the constituents in the Lithovit. First we searched the literature and those were what we found in the literature. Later on, we obtained the Materials Safety Data (MSDS) and the MSDS confirmed what we have found in the literature.
Q. Please, go on with the explanation of table 2.
A. Second and middle column, contains the concentration in milligrams per kilogram and that was converted to percentages. And the percentages are in the third column.
Q. Now can you tell the court from the results you obtained as contained in table 2 what it means?
A. The results indicated that all the parameters were very very low. And I stress the ‘low’. The solution was very diluted. When I say very diluted, let me give you an analogy.
Let’s say we get a glass of water about 250 millimeters and we drop in a cube of sugar, the sugar will disappear in the water and form what we call a solution. If anyone tasted that solution, they will attest to the presence of sugar because they test sugar.
If we take that glass of solution and pour it into a polytank, containing litres of water, everyone will agree that there is sugar in that container of water but if everyone tastes it, he or she will not taste sugar because the solution was diluted.
Q. For your analogy in this particular case on the liquid submitted to you. What was the situation?
A. We concluded that the solution was very diluted.
Q. Now have a look at page 8 of the report and tell the court about your conclusions?
A. We said Lithovit is a nano-fertiliser and this is used as an alternative to conventional fertilisers. It is used on vegetables, citrus, cotton and rice farms. Sample that was brought to us by EOCO was identified as Lithovit fertiliser. We found the pH. The pH was 0.5%, which has slight ammonia smell.
It was composed of Calcium Carbonate 3.22%, mg Carbonate 0.58%, there were other traced elements. We said the material identified to be Lithovit, the application on cocoa farms from nursery to growth and yields stages remains experimental because currently, there is no evidence in the literature for the applications of Lithovit on cocoa plants.
Q. You also gave recommendations on page 9 in exhibit H. Can you explain the recommendations to the court?
A. Our recommendations said Lithovit… that tested was very small. And that it might compromise the output of its application. We went on to say that preliminary investigation should be conducted before widespread use. We also recommended that since Lithovit is basic it is advisable to avoid acidic soils. Hence the pH of all soils in cocoa growing areas should be determined prior to the use of the Lithovit. We also recommended that the sprayers should be cleaned and rinsed after every use.
Q. Can you explain what pH means?
A. pH determines whether a sample or anything you have is acidic or basic. Let me give an example, I am sure many of us have used Vinegar. Vinegar is simply acidic content in water. When it is in water, it breaks apart and to give hydrogen irons. Because Vinegar is acidic, the hydrogen iron amount is high and the pH is low. If it were basic, then the hydrogen iron amount will be very low and the pH will be very high.
Q. Doc., you stated that you receive a MSDS, have a look at this document, exhibit A1 and tell the court what it is
A. This is the document, European Commission Safety Data Sheet MSDS for Lithovit Co2 foliar fertiliser. It provides the chemical composition and safety associated with it. The document says CaCO3. Calcium Carbonate should be 84.5%, MgCO3 4.6.
There should also be Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 7.6%, Iron (Fe) 0.75%, Manganese (Mn) 166 milligram/Kg. These are the concentrations that are found in the MSDS.
Q. Doc., I want you to look at you report once again. Look at Table 2 of your report in exhibit H, and compare your findings from the test you conducted with the composition of the element pH, as contained in MSD and tell the court what you find?
A. The composition from the MSDS indicates that CaCO3 should be 84.5%, our analysis gives CaCo3 concentration 3.22%, MgCO3 from MSDS is 4.6% we found the amount to 0.4%, Fe from the MSDS should 0.75% and we found 0.012%, Mn supposed to be 166Mg/Kg, that is from MSDS and we got 0.001% or 8.919 milligram per kilogram.
We also found Nicole (Ni) and that was 0.003%, we got Sonic (Zn) and that was 0.0003%. There was some lead (Pp), the concentration was 0.001%. These were some of the elements or compounds that were found and they were all very low in concentration.
State Attorney: my lord that will be all for the witness.
Cross-examination by Samuel Cudjoe, Lawyer for the accused
Q. Dr Osei-Twum, you do not know A1, Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni?
A. No please, I don’t.
Q. In fact, the sample, which was tested by the Chemistry Department has no connection with A1, isn’t?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did A1 give you the sample, which the Chemistry Department tested?
A. I have never met A1 or any of his representatives, so he did not give me any sample.
Q. Am putting it to you that to your knowledge A1 has no connection to what you tested?
A. Your lordship, that has no connection to me. I received the sample from EOCO, whether it came from any of his representatives I have no knowledge of it.
Q. Doc, from the report that you just read, what shows that, you sitting here, worked on it. Since there is no indication you worked on the report?
A. My Lord, in this submission there is nothing to show that we worked on it, but there is everything indicating that a report was submitted by the Department of Chemistry of the University of Ghana. And we have records to show that Prof Augustine Kwame Donkor and myself worked on the sample.
Q. In fact, Doc, are you a permanent staff of the Chemistry Department?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. In fact, you don’t work there now?
A. Yes I do. I work there now.
Q. How old are you?
A. I am 68, going 69.
Q. Then you cannot be a permanent staff of the Chemistry Department, having past the statutory required age.
A. When this test was done, I was a permanent employee of University of Ghana and currently, I am a part time lecturer at the same university and same department.
Q. Doc, I am putting it to you, since you were 65 when EOCO sent the sample, you could only be on contract with the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana and not a permanent staff?
A. The University of Ghana policy is that, when you turn 60, you are given a retirement contract and you continue to be a permanent staff of the university until you are 70. If you are at the professorial rank you continue to be permanent staff till you are 70.
Q. Dr Osei-Twum, I am putting it to you that if you had worked on the sample personally, you would have given a police statement?
A. I analysed the sample we were given by EOCO. EOCO never indicated to us that it has anything to do with criminality. We were only asked to analyse the sample.
Q. Dr Osei Twum, did you download the MSDS or you got it from EOCO?
A. We got the copy of that MSDS from EOCO.
Q. As an Associate Professor in Chemistry, don’t you think it was prudent that you got the MSDS independently of EOCO, who are not experts in Chemistry?
A. The MSDS could not have been manufactured by EOCO. When we went online all MSDS we found matched exactly what EOCO gave to us.
Q. Doc., you were untruthful to this court, when you told this court that EOCO never briefed you about any criminality concerning the procurement of Lithovit by COCOBOD. I’m putting it to you?
A. As a Chemist, I am not in the law profession. Prof Donkor and myself didn’t sit down to discuss the criminality associated with the sample that EOCO submitted to us. So I have not lied to the court.
Q. Doc, I’m putting it to you that EOCO briefed the Department of Chemistry about their, investigation about the procurement of COCOBOD and it wanted the department test the fertilizer?
A. If EOCO briefed anyone, it might have been my Head of Department. It never got to me and I am not aware of it.
Q. Dr Osei Twum, you stated this morning that EOCO brought this sample to your department.
A. Yes, I stated that EOCO brought the sample to my department, I didn’t state that EOCO brought the sample to Dr Donkor and to myself.
Q. Doc., contrary to what you stated in the court, the document states that EOCO briefed the department of its investigation involving the criminality concerning the procurement of Lithovit fertiliser.
A. EOCO briefed the department and the representative of the department is the head. So if it says that EOCO briefed the department, then the department head had been briefed.
Q. So doc from your own answer, then you cannot be the representative of your department?
A. The Head of Department did not do the work. The Scientists who did the analysis would not be the appropriate people to represent the department.
Q. Doc, I am putting it to you that if you had played any part in the scientific research, at least your name or signature would have been on the report?
A. The report has only the name of the Head of Department. The scientists did write the report and gave it to the Head of Department to take it from there. Since the Head of Department was to sign the report, there was no need for the scientists to have their names and signature on that report.
Q. Doc are you are aware COCOBOD procured Lithovit fertiliser in 2014, 2015 and 2016?
A. Today, I can say, I am aware, but when I was doing the work I was not aware. The question should have been were you aware?
Cross-examination by Nutifafa Nutsukpui counsel for A1 holding Benson Nutsukpui brief
Q. You told this court that yourself and Mr Donkor did write this report, you just testified, is that correct?
A. We prepared the report.
Q. When you say you prepared the report is that different from writing the report?
A. Yes.
Q. Please tell the honourable court what preparation of the report means?
A. We put together the data. We formatted the data the way we wanted it and prepared the data in a way the report should be written.
Q. Sir, so who in fact wrote this report?
A. We have a Secretary in the department who writes reports for us.
Q. Sir, would you have had the opportunity to review the report that is written by the Departmental Secretary you just referred to?
A. Yes
Q. Sir, did you in fact review this report, in respect of which you have testified today?
A. Completely
Q. So you stand by the contents of the said report?
A. Yes, I do.
**Q. So, today is not the first time you became aware that your department on exactly why they needed the analysis done, that is correct?
A. Yes, today is not the first day.
Q. Kindly show Dr Osei Twum the report in exhibit H, under the head – background. And read the very first paragraph to the honourable court?
A. Reading”…”
Q. Now sir, you saw this paragraph before your department sent out this report, that is correct?
A. That is correct
Q. And, in fact the briefing provided by EOCO gave the scope of work, that is also true?
Q. I am not privy to that briefing.
Q. How was the scope of your work in respect of the sample delivered to you by EOCO determined?
A. EOCO submitted the scope from item A to M on page 2 of the report to the department.
Q. And, in fact, EOCO also wanted the department to determined whether the substance they delivered was pesticide, fungicide or weedicides…
A. Correct
Q. EOCO also wanted the department to determined the application of that substance from nursery to yield. That is true?
A. That is true
Q. Sir, by necessity that aspect of the instructions in evaluating the substance that was handed, that EOCO delivered, would have to be carried out practically in the field, that is correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now sir, the Chemistry Department didn’t carry out any field testing or application of the substance that EOCO had delivered to the department, am I correct?
A, That is correct. We did not provide any result to EOCO based on test. The only response we gave is in the conclusion, which stated that although the material is identified to be Lithovit, its application on cocoa farms from nursery to growth and yield stages remains experimental. Because there’s currently no evidence in literature for Lithovit application on cocoa plants.
Q. Sir are you aware that apart from cocoa, Ghana Cocoa Board regulates other crops?
A. I am not.
Q. And now sir, from your experience, when a client brings you a sample for analysis, they provide you instructions or they have basis for your work, that is correct?
A. That is correct
Q. And you see your department, being one of great repute, the report produced on your work in respect of the sample EOCO delivered does capture in details the specific instructions for a particular work you were to do?
A. That is true
Q. And sir, your report doesn’t state anywhere there was a subsequent or supplementary, apart from those captured on page 2 of the report. That is correct?
A. That is correct. The report did not state there were supplementary, they were not captured in the report.
Q. Sir, again from your experience, the conclusions that you draw from your scientific research any report must necessarily be based on the actual work that you have done, in which you are reporting, that is also correct?
A. That is also not correct. Because when you are writing a report, it is based on the actual work, as well as what pertains in the literature.
Q. Now sir, the literature review is also guided by the instructions that client has given you in respect of the work, that is also true?
A. That is true and that is what we did
Q. Now sir, the instructions that your department received for this work, did not mention anywhere application of the substance on cocoa. That is correct?
A. I cannot say this is correct, because if we’re to submit all the documentation, somewhere cocoa would have been mentioned, but it is not in the report. It could have been in the document.
Q. Where you in any of those discussions with the Head of Department?
A. Firstly, when EOCO came, they met with us with the sample. They submitted the sample to the Head of Department and we were called to meet the EOCO officials. We did not have any discussions with them. It was just to take the sample.
Judge: Case adjourned to October 27, 2020.

The post Lithovit chemical component too low, says witness in Opuni trial appeared first on The Chronicle Online.

Read Full Story