Ghana's Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has accused the Ghana Gold Board (GOLDBOD) Chief Executive Officer of failing to provide clear answers regarding a reported GHS 22 billion loss. This substantial loss is linked to the country’s domestic gold-buying programme. The Minority Leader stated that the public received insults instead of requested financial figures.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified this GHS 22 billion loss, equivalent to about $1.7 billion, in its August 2026 review of Ghana’s programme. This figure pertains to the domestic gold purchase programme in 2025. The Minority Caucus, led by Afenyo-Markin, criticised GOLDBOD CEO Sammy Gyamfi for his response, which they deemed inadequate and disrespectful.
This incident fits into a broader narrative of public financial scrutiny in Ghana. The nation has recently navigated significant economic challenges, including high inflation and currency depreciation. Government entities managing key economic programmes face increased pressure for transparency and accountability. The domestic gold purchase programme itself was designed to bolster foreign exchange reserves and stabilise the cedi, making its reported losses particularly concerning.
Alexander Afenyo-Markin stated, “Ghanaians asked for figures. They were given insults. The figures are still outstanding.” He further criticised a reference to a brothel allegedly made by Mr Gyamfi, calling it inappropriate for a public officer accounting for public funds. The Minority Caucus also highlighted that Gyamfi had not disputed the IMF’s loss figure, but rather sought to contextualise the programme’s overall financial performance.
The implications of this dispute are significant for public trust and government accountability. Decision-makers and financial markets will closely watch for GOLDBOD’s official response and any subsequent investigations. This situation could influence future oversight of state-backed economic initiatives and potentially lead to calls for more stringent financial reporting standards. The ongoing debate underscores the critical need for transparency in managing public funds and economic programmes.
The Minority Caucus rejected Gyamfi’s explanation that the programme contributed to a 41 percent appreciation of the cedi. They also questioned his claims of increasing Ghana’s foreign exchange reserves from $8.9 billion to $13 billion. The opposition argued that GOLDBOD cannot claim credit for benefits while distancing itself from the programme’s costs. They stated, “An institution that claims authorship of the benefits cannot describe itself as a passive agent when the costs are counted.”
Furthermore, the opposition scrutinised GOLDBOD’s revenue from fees. Mr Gyamfi cited transactions of about GHS 133 billion, with fees including a 0.258 percent assay charge and a 0.5 percent service fee. The Minority calculated that these figures suggest GOLDBOD earned approximately GHS 1 billion in fees from the programme. They concluded that without these agency fees, there would be no operational surplus for the programme. This detailed financial breakdown further intensifies the demand for clear answers regarding the GHS 22 billion loss and the overall financial health of the domestic gold purchase programme.
The Ghana Gold Board has not yet issued an immediate response to the Minority’s latest statement. This silence leaves many questions unanswered regarding the substantial financial discrepancy. The public and financial analysts await a comprehensive explanation from GOLDBOD. This situation highlights the ongoing tension between government entities and opposition parties over economic transparency. It also underscores the importance of independent financial assessments, such as those provided by the IMF, in holding public institutions accountable.