Embattled former Chief Executive of the Ghana COCOBOD has
filed an application in court seeking documentation relating to facts that the
Republic would be relying on in the case against him.
Dr. Stephen Opuni has been charged with 27 counts of various
criminal offences relating to lithovit foliar fertilizer supply contracts covering
three cocoa planting seasons awarded to indigenous company, Agricult Ghana
Limited.
Even though the matters being tried by the court relates to
actions taken by Dr. Opuni as COCOBOD CEO, he has indicated that he does not have
copies of the documents in question and therefore wants the court to order the Attorney
General to give him copies.
Dr. Opuni in the application said the documents are crucial
to his defence against the charges because his lawyers would be making copious
references to them.
The documents relates firstly to claims by the Attorney
General that Dr. Opuni whiles serving as COCOBOD CEO instructed or directed
officials of a subsidiary of COCOBOD Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG)
to shorten the period for testing the said Lithovit Foliar fertilizer.
The other document the former COCOBOD CEO is applying for are
letters he is alleged by the AG to have written to the Public Procurement
Authority on the 19th and 24th February and the 10th
December 2014 and the 16th October 2015 purportedly misleading the
authority to grant approval for sole sourcing of the fertilizer in question.
Dr. Opuni also wants copies of the report of the February
2017 probe that indicted him on the matter and recommended criminal
investigation of the said allegations that have become the subject matter of
the court case.
Aside these documents, Dr. Opuni is also asking the court to
direct the AG to supply him with copies witness statements of persons interviewed
as part of the probe and those the state intends to call as prosecution
witnesses and defence witnesses of Seidu Agongo and Agricult.
The former COCOBOD CEO believes the documents in question would
help him in the preparation of his defence.
Dr. Opuni is relying on the same constitutional provision
that has led to the invocation of the Supreme Court’s power to interprete and
enforce the constitution in the case against a former Board Chair of the
National Communication Authority and four others.
He believes the
provisions of Article 19(2)(e)&(g) of the 1992 constitution entitles him to
the documents he is applying for.
Comments
Post a Comment