Associate Professor Ebo Turkson has strongly rejected claims that the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) made a US$1.7 billion loss. He clarified that this figure, cited by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), relates to costs incurred by the Bank of Ghana (BoG) through its Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.
The IMF's 2026 Article IV Consultation report on Ghana highlighted a significant scaling-up of the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025. This expansion resulted in losses exceeding US$1.7 billion, which is equivalent to about 1.5% of Ghana's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Professor Turkson, an Associate Professor of Development Economics at the University of Ghana, stated on JoyNews' Newsfile that GoldBod itself is not operating at a loss. He emphasized that the US$1.7 billion (approximately GHS 20.4 billion at an assumed exchange rate of GHS 12 to US$1) represents a cost to the central bank.
This clarification is crucial for understanding Ghana's economic landscape and the financial health of its state-backed entities. The distinction highlights the operational nature of GoldBod versus the policy-driven costs borne by the central bank. Ghana's economy has been navigating a challenging period, including high inflation and currency depreciation. The Domestic Gold Purchase Programme was a strategic intervention to bolster national reserves and stabilize the cedi. This programme fits into Ghana's broader strategy to enhance economic resilience and reduce reliance on foreign currency. The Bank of Ghana's financial statements have recently been under scrutiny, making such clarifications vital for public and investor confidence.
Professor Turkson explained that the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme is an economic policy intervention. Its primary goals are to help Ghana build its reserve buffers with gold and reduce incentives for gold smuggling. GoldBod purchases gold at prices close to international market rates. The Bank of Ghana then records the value of this gold using its own exchange rate for accounting purposes. The difference between these two rates creates a 'translation cost' that the central bank bears. “The way between the two rates, by design, will mean that it will come at a cost to the central bank,” he stated. This cost is recorded on the central bank's books.
The implications of this clarification are significant for policy discussions and public perception. It shifts the focus from an alleged loss by a specific entity to a policy cost borne by the central bank. Professor Turkson argued that the debate should not solely focus on the programme's cost. Instead, it should also consider the substantial economic benefits it has delivered. He noted that the programme helped Ghana accumulate significant gold reserves. It also supported foreign exchange market interventions, which contributed to the appreciation of the cedi in 2025. GoldBod added almost 40 tonnes of gold, valued at nearly US$4 billion, to Ghana's reserves in its first year of operation. This massive accumulation of gold reserves significantly strengthened the nation's financial position.
Furthermore, the stronger cedi subsequently helped reduce Ghana's debt-to-GDP ratio from about 68% to 45%. This currency appreciation generated savings of nearly GHS 7 billion on external debt servicing. Professor Turkson also linked the improved exchange rate to a decline in inflation. He stated that the cedi's appreciation helped bring inflation down to 9.5% at the end of 2025. These broader economic benefits, he contended, must be part of any discussion about the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme's costs. Ghana must look beyond the reported cost and assess whether this policy intervention has strengthened the country's reserves and economic resilience. This comprehensive view is essential for informed decision-making and for building a resilient economy.