GoldBod losses should be judged against foreign exchange gains - analysts

Ghana’s gold purchasing programme should not be judged solely on reported losses of $1.7bn, policy analyst Steve Manteaw has said, as economists and politicians debate whether the cost of the scheme is justified by its wider economic benefits.

Dr Manteaw, co-chair of the Ghana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GHEITI), said the reported losses should be considered in the context of the cost of buying gold locally and the foreign exchange generated through the programme.

He described the $1.7bn figure as a transaction cost, rather than evidence that the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) programme had failed.

“If you had to incur a loss of $1.7bn to bring in $10bn, that for me shouldn’t be a problem,” he told Joy News.

Dr Manteaw said Ghana had incurred losses through gold purchasing schemes in previous years, including under the gold-for-oil programme and domestic gold purchases for reserves.

He cited a loss of GH¢5.7bn in 2024, arguing that similar scrutiny had not been applied to those transactions.

GoldBod was established to formalise Ghana’s gold trade, tackle smuggling and increase the amount of foreign

exchange retained by the country from its gold exports.

But the scheme has come under growing scrutiny over the cost of purchasing gold from local producers.

Minority demands answers

The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) Minority in Parliament has challenged the financial performance of GoldBod and demanded answers over losses linked to the government's domestic gold purchasing programme.

Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has cited an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report which says the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme recorded losses of more than $1.7bn in 2025, equivalent to about 1.5% of Ghana's GDP.

He has argued that the reported losses require greater scrutiny and has questioned whether the financial costs of the programme are being fully reflected in GoldBod's accounts.

Mr Afenyo-Markin has also disputed the significance of GoldBod's reported GH¢5.4bn surplus, arguing that some costs associated with the gold purchasing programme were borne by the Bank of Ghana and may therefore not appear in GoldBod's own accounts.

The Minority says it will continue to demand explanations over the financial arrangements surrounding the programme.

GoldBod rejects loss claim

GoldBod Chief Executive Sammy Gyamfi has strongly rejected the suggestion that the institution itself made a $1.7bn loss.

Mr Gyamfi says the $1.7bn figure relates to losses incurred by the Bank of Ghana under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme and should not be presented as a loss recorded by GoldBod.

He has pointed to GoldBod's audited 2025 financial statements, which he says show an operational surplus of about GH¢907m and an overall surplus of about GH¢5.4bn.

Mr Gyamfi has challenged the Minority to invite him before Parliament so he can respond directly to its allegations and explain GoldBod's financial position.

The Institute of Fiscal Policy Governance has also rejected claims that GoldBod recorded a $1.7bn loss, saying its audited accounts show a surplus of approximately GH¢5.44bn.

It argues that losses recorded by the Bank of Ghana in connection with the domestic gold purchase programme should not automatically be classified as losses on GoldBod's books.

The competing claims have therefore shifted the debate from whether $1.7bn was lost to which institution incurred the loss, how the figure was calculated and whether the cost should be measured against the wider benefits of the programme.

'Design defects'

Economist Professor Godfred Alufar Bokpin said GoldBod had made an important contribution by helping to bring gold-related foreign exchange into the formal economy.

He said the gap between Ghana's gold export figures and the amounts reported by importing countries had narrowed significantly since GoldBod was introduced.

Prof Bokpin described this as a major achievement for the programme.

However, he said the domestic gold purchasing scheme had suffered from "design defects" which could have been avoided through better planning and expert input.

He argued that the government should have considered the entire gold value chain when assessing the programme's costs and benefits.

“There were design defects in the programme,” he said, adding that a better-designed system could have reduced the losses while preserving the benefits of retaining foreign exchange.

Costs and benefits

Prof Bokpin also questioned whether all the economic gains being attributed to GoldBod could be directly linked to the scheme.

He said Ghana's broader macroeconomic stability depended primarily on fiscal policy and monetary policy, led by the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Ghana.

He also pointed to the abolition of a 1.5% withholding tax on artisanal and small-scale gold producers as an additional cost to the state.

With artisanal and small-scale gold exports worth more than $10bn, he said the government also needed to consider the tax revenue forgone when assessing GoldBod's overall impact.

“Looking at the value chain approach entirely, you see that the losses actually go beyond” the figure currently being discussed, he said.

Despite these concerns, Prof Bokpin said the benefits of retaining foreign exchange from Ghana's gold sector were substantial.

He said the programme had helped reduce gold smuggling and improve the amount of foreign exchange entering the formal economy.

But he argued that the losses associated with the scheme were not sustainable.

He said the government, GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana had recognised the problem and were working on an exit arrangement aimed at reducing the losses from about 14.5-17% to about 5%.

The controversy therefore centres not only on the size of the reported loss, but also on how the accounts of GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana are treated and whether the foreign exchange gains justify the costs of the intervention.

GoldBod maintains that it has been financially successful, while the Minority says the wider costs of the domestic gold purchase programme require further scrutiny.