Dr. Samuel Akoto-Bamford, Principal Research Scientist, has described the Forensic Science Laboratory report (P. Quartey-Papafio report) on fertilizer as an incomplete analysis.  

He pointed out that the concentration units in the report did not align with accepted practices, making comparisons with other fertilizer analyses difficult.  

Testifying as a subpoenaed witness for Seidu Agongo in the ongoing trial involving Dr Stephen Opuni, the former Chief Executive of COCOBOD, and two others, Dr Akoto-Bamford specifically noted that calcium was expressed as Ca2+ and magnesium as Mg2+. 

He explained that the report only measured calcium, magnesium, and urea, omitting other essential primary, secondary, and micronutrients typically found in most fertilizers. 

Dr. Opuni and Mr. Agongo face 27 charges, including defrauding by false pretences, willfully causing financial loss to the state, money laundering, and corruption in violation of the Public Procurement Act.  

Both have pleaded not guilty and are currently on GH¢300,000 self-recognisance bail. 

The report indicated that the sample could not be classified as a pesticide, fungicide, or fertilizer.  

It noted that the strong ammonia smell was due to the urea and advised against its application on cocoa seedlings and plants. 

Further testing revealed that the sample had been adulterated and did not meet standard specifications.  

The report concluded that the sample was unsuitable for its intended purpose and could not be used as a foliar nutrient for cocoa during its nursery, growth, and yield stages. 

“lt is harmful to humans and animals as well as hazardous to water,” it said. 

Dr Akoto-Bamford, the ninth defence witness, stated that he was consulted by the Kuenyehia and Nutsukpui Law Firm to assess two laboratory analysis reports on fertilizer samples from the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA). 

He explained that the first report, from the Forensic Science Laboratory (P. Quartey-Papafio), was dated May 5, 2017, while the second report, from the Material Science Laboratory, was dated July 26, 2017. 

Dr. Akoto-Bamford noted that his evaluation focused on the methodologies, procedures, and findings of the reports, with particular attention to their adherence to accepted scientific standards, regulatory requirements, and analytical accuracy. 

He said that the evaluation also considered the appropriateness of the analytical techniques used and the reliability of the conclusions drawn.  

It was conducted in line with internationally recognized quality control and assurance practices, as well as the prescribed methods outlined in the Ghana Fertilizer Analytical Manual, in compliance with the Plants and Fertilizer Act, Act 803:2010. 

Dr Akoto-Bamford, who is the ninth defence witness said Kuenyehia and Nutsukpui Law Firm consulted him to assess two laboratory analysis reports from the Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) on fertilizer samples.  

He said the first report, from the Forensic Science Laboratory (P. Quartey-Papafio), was dated May 5, 2017, while the second report, from the Material Science Laboratory, is dated July 26, 2017.  

Dr. Akoto-Bamford stated that the standard referenced in the report, GS 175:2017, was intended for drinking water quality, not for fertilizer analysis.  

He explained that the test methods outlined in the standard were not suitable for analyzing fertilizers due to differences in the sample matrix, analytical parameters, concentration levels, and regulatory specifications between water and fertilizer. 

Dr. Akoto-Bamford also criticized the analytical techniques used in the report, describing them as vague and overly generalized, referring only to “chemical/chromatography/spectrometer” without specifying the exact methods or techniques applied.  

He emphasized that standard practice requires the test method and specific techniques used for analyzing each nutrient element to be clearly stated, which was not done in this case. 

Dr. Akoto-Bamford further pointed out that the reference value specifications quoted in the report could not be traced in the GS 175:2017 standard.  

He noted that in fertilizer analysis, the determined concentration values should be compared with nutrient-guaranteed values to assess compliance, which was not properly addressed in the report. 

Dr. Bamford concluded that the findings in the report were contradictory and unreliable. 

He said that while the analysis determined the presence of plant nutrients like calcium, magnesium, and urea, which are commonly found in fertilizers, the report’s conclusions did not align with this, despite the sample pointing to it being a fertilizer. 

The test methods employed were unsuitable for fertilizers, the analysis was incomplete, analytical techniques employed were ambiguous, and the conclusions drawn were contradictory and lacked scientific grounding, he noted. 

Dr. Akoto-Bamford, however, stated that the evaluation of the test from the Material Science Laboratory by the GSA showed that the standards and test methods cited in the report were acceptable.  

He explained that the prescribed techniques for fertilizer analysis were used, and a broader range of essential nutrients commonly found in fertilizers, including Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Calcium, Iron, Potassium, and Zinc, were analyzed. 

The witness noted that the nutrient values in the results fell within the expected concentration ranges for fertilizers and were expressed using the correct units.  

He pointed out that the uniquely high calcium concentration reported was consistent with what was expected for Lithovit fertilizer. 

Based on the results, Dr. Akoto-Bamford affirmed that the report identified the sample as fertilizer.  

He emphasized that the results presented in the report from the Material Science Laboratory were reliable and that the standards and test methods employed were suitable and prescribed for fertilizer analysis, concluding that the number of parameters analyzed was sufficient and the conclusions drawn correctly identified the sample as fertilizer.