Incoming Majority Leader James Agalga has demanded a comprehensive audit of Ghana's Domestic Gold Purchase Programme. He argues that any investigation limited to 2025 would fail to provide a complete picture of the scheme's operations.
Mr. Agalga, the Builsa North Member of Parliament, stated that Parliament must examine the programme's origins. He believes the probe should cover gold purchases made under previous administrations, starting from 2021. This broader scope is crucial to understand how costs were handled and whether current practices are efficient.
This demand comes amidst ongoing scrutiny of Ghana's gold trading activities and public finance management. The Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, initiated in 2021, aims to boost the Bank of Ghana's gold reserves and stabilize the cedi. Ensuring transparency and accountability in such a vital economic scheme is paramount for investor confidence and national economic stability.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express, Mr. Agalga emphasized the need for a holistic investigation. He stated, “You want us to interrogate matters properly; you do a holistic investigation.” He highlighted that an agreement between the Precious Minerals Marketing Company (PMMC) and the Bank of Ghana, dating back to 2023, remains in force. Limiting the investigation to 2025 would ignore the implications of this active agreement.
A full audit would clarify the financial health and operational integrity of the programme. It would also address concerns about potential losses and inefficiencies in gold purchasing. Decision-makers and financial markets will closely watch the outcome of any such parliamentary inquiry, as it could influence future policy on resource management and central bank operations. A thorough review could lead to reforms ensuring better value for money for the Ghanaian taxpayer.
Mr. Agalga specifically questioned the PMMC's purchasing practices in 2021. He asked whether the PMMC bought dore gold, which is raw gold, using forex bureau rates instead of Bank of Ghana rates. He noted that such a difference in rates could lead to significant financial losses for the state. “So, who bears the costs associated with those differentials?” he queried, stressing the need to determine past and present practices.
The legislator also defended GoldBod, an agent in the programme, against claims of incurring losses. He stated that documents he reviewed showed GoldBod had not made losses. Mr. Agalga pointed to the Auditor-General’s 2025 report, which he said contained no adverse findings against GoldBod. This suggests a need for clarity on the financial performance of all entities involved.
He further cited an agreement between PMMC and the Bank of Ghana that covers costs associated with domestic gold purchases. These costs include security, insurance, assaying, and smelting. Mr. Agalga argued that GoldBod, acting as an agent for the Bank of Ghana, should not bear these costs. He asserted, “The principal must pay the cost.”
According to Mr. Agalga, GoldBod has not incurred losses but has instead made a substantial surplus. He claimed this surplus is “in the region of what, 4 billion plus, thereabout.” He added that this positive financial performance is captured in the Auditor-General’s report. This figure, if confirmed, would highlight a significant financial contribution from the programme.
The call for a broader investigation aims to bring all these issues to light. Mr. Agalga believes a thorough examination will provide the public with accurate information. This transparency is vital for public trust and for guiding future policy decisions regarding Ghana’s valuable gold resources. The outcome could shape how Ghana manages its mineral wealth for years to come.