COCOBOD Trials: Contradiction Abundance As UG Educator Mishandles Questions Under Cross-Examination


A science instructor at the University of Ghana, Dr. Emmanuel Yaw Osei-Twum, got his rite of passage while affirming in court for the Chemistry Department of the University in the continuous preliminary of the previous CEO of COCOBOD and two others.

Amusingly, both the Head of Department who marked a report which is in proof, the lead investigator who dealt with it, just as the Secretary in the Department who composed the report, couldn’t give testimony the state, yet Dr. Yaw Osei-Twum chose to speak to the Chemistry Department despite the fact that he is low maintenance staff.



He told the High Court on Wednesday, October, 21 that he along with the lead expert Prof. Augustine Kwame Donkor led examination into Lithovit manure in May 2017.

The EOCO in April 2017 gotten the Chemistry Department of the University of Ghana to break down an example of Lithovit Fertilizer.

“We were to decide the constituents and to discover the amount of each was in the example. We were additionally to disclose to EOCO whether the example was manure,” the fifth arraignment witness told the court the extent of their work.

“What’s more, who composed the report?” he was asked by the indictment, Chief State Attorney Evelyn Keelson. He reacted by saying “Prof. Donkor and I composed the report” and was marked by the Head of Chemistry Dept. Prof Louis Doamekpor.

In spite of the fact that EOCO’s solicitation to the Department had nothing to do with cocoa, the analysts, as attorneys for the blamed presume bias, continued to relate their examination to cocoa.

“We said the material recognized to be Lithovit, the application on cocoa ranches from nursery to development and yield stages stays trial on the grounds that at present, there is no proof in the writing for the utilizations of Lithovit on cocoa plants,” Prof. Yaw Osei-Twum told the court when he was gotten some information about their decision.

His declaration returns on the of a torrential slide of proof in court, pointing various writing composed by the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG) on Lithovit manure and its use on developed cocoa.

Dr. Emmanuel Yaw Osei-Twum was consequently barbecued under questioning by attorney Samuel Cudjoe, the lead counsel for the principal denounced Dr. Stephen Opuni.

Per the record of the Chemistry Department as distributed on its site, Prof. Emmanuel Yaw Osei-Twum is a Visiting Scholar.

The legal advisor, along these lines, got off defaming claims by the observer that he is a lasting staff of the University of Ghana.

Q. Truth be told Dr., would you say you are a lasting staff of the Chemistry Dept.?

A. Truly, I am.

Q. Truth be told you don’t work there now?

A. Truly I do. I work there now

Q. How old would you say you are?

A. I am 68 going to 69.

Q. At that point you can’t be a lasting worker of the Chemistry Department, having passed the legal period of retirement.

A. My Lord, when this work was done, I was a lasting worker of the University of Ghana, and right now, I am low maintenance teacher at a similar college and same office.

Q. Dr. I am putting it to you since you were 65 when EOCO sent the example, you must be on contract with the Chemistry Dept of the UG and not lasting staff.

A. The University of Ghana strategy is the point at which you turn 60, you are given a retirement agreement and you keep on being a perpetual staff of the college until you are 70. on the off chance that you are at the scholarly position you keep on being perpetual staff till you are 79.

In the interim, Dr. Emmanuel Yaw Osei-Twum likewise rejected that EOCO advised the group that takes a shot at the example, guaranteeing, “the first run through EOCO came they met with us with the example. They presented the example through the head of office and we were called to meet the EOCO authorities. We didn’t have any conversations, it was simply to take the examples.”

“I am putting it to you Dr on the off chance that you had any influence in the logical examination at any rate your name or mark would have been on the report,” the legal advisor stated.

Yet, he answered, “The report has just the name of the top of the office. The researchers composed the report and offered it to the top of the division to take it from that point. Since the top of the office was to sign the report, there was no requirement for the researchers to have their names and mark on that report.”

Strikingly, regardless of expressing in his proof in boss and under interrogation that he composed the exploration report with Prof. Donkor, the story changed when he was exposed to severe evidence by counsel for the second charged Seidu Agongo, legal advisor Nutifafa Nutsukpui.

Q. You told this court that yourself and Prof. Donkor did compose this report you just affirmed, is that right?

A. We arranged the report.

Q. At the point when you state you arranged the report is that not the same as composing the report.

A. Indeed my ruler.

Q. It would be ideal if you mention to the noteworthy court what your arrangement of the report implies?

A. We set up the information. We organized the information how we would have preferred it, we set up the information, and arranged the information in the manner in which the report ought to be composed.

Q. Sir, so who actually composed this report?

A. We have a Secretary in the office who do compose reports for us.

Q. Sir would you have had the occasion to survey the report that is composed by the departmental Secretary you just alluded to?

A. Truly

Q. Sir, destroyed you certainty survey this report, in regard of which you have affirmed today?

A. Totally

Q. So you remain by the substance of the said report?

A. Truly, I do.

Q. All in all, today isn’t the first occasion when you became mindful that your specialization had been informed by EOCO on precisely why they required the examination done, that is right?

A. Indeed, today isn’t the principal day.