Sammy Gyamfi, Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), has dismissed claims linking his bodyguards to gold trading or the alleged theft of GHS 200 million belonging to the state agency. Mr. Gyamfi described these allegations as “laughable” and part of a coordinated disinformation campaign.
The GoldBod CEO addressed weeks of controversy during an X Spaces session on Sunday, August 9. Viral claims suggested a former bodyguard had absconded with GHS 200 million from GoldBod. Mr. Gyamfi categorically denied this, stating none of his security personnel were involved in gold trading or had taken money from the institution.
This denial comes amid heightened scrutiny of state-owned enterprises and their financial management. The alleged loss of GHS 200 million from GoldBod, a significant amount, raises concerns about accountability and oversight within public institutions. Such claims can erode public trust and impact investor confidence in Ghana’s economic stability.
“None of my bodyguards is involved in gold trading, and none of my bodyguards has stolen or taken Gold Board money,” Mr. Gyamfi stated. He also distanced himself from Dominic Bonsu, the licensed gold dealer at the centre of the controversy. Mr. Gyamfi indicated that Mr. Bonsu is an NPP constituency executive in the Manso area of the Ashanti Region, not a member of his security detail.
Mr. Gyamfi further questioned the physical suitability of Mr. Bonsu as a bodyguard, citing their differing physiques. He said, “You can see that I’m a very lean guy, but the last time I saw him, when he was brought from remand custody, I saw that I’m more muscular than him, I’m bigger than him. I don’t see how that guy can be my bodyguard. So it is laughable.” This statement aimed to discredit the personal link alleged between them.
The GoldBod CEO broadened his response, accusing political opponents of deliberately spreading misinformation. He alleged the campaign was driven by individuals who believe his role at GoldBod is responsible for their continued stay in opposition. This suggests a political motive behind the allegations, aiming to undermine his credibility and the institution he leads.
Mr. Gyamfi named Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, Atiwa East MP Abena Osei-Asare, and Ofoase Ayirebi MP Kojo Oppong Nkrumah as leaders of this alleged campaign. He urged journalists and the public to verify claims made by these MPs directly with GoldBod. This call for verification highlights the importance of accurate reporting and fact-checking in public discourse.
He argued that his critics are protected by parliamentary privilege when making allegations in Parliament. Mr. Gyamfi vowed to pursue legal action if these allegations were repeated outside the parliamentary chamber. This stance indicates his readiness to defend his reputation through legal means if necessary, challenging his accusers to stand by their claims without parliamentary immunity.
Mr. Gyamfi also rejected renewed calls from the Minority for a special parliamentary committee to investigate GoldBod’s finances. He argued that Parliament’s existing committees already possess the authority to invite him and other chief executives for questioning. He predicted that MPs pushing for a special investigation would eventually avoid using the established committee system.
“You have a committee on economy, a committee on finance, a committee of Parliament on lands — you can invite any CEO to appear before you to answer questions. You don’t need any special committee,” Mr. Gyamfi asserted. He challenged them to issue an invitation, promising to appear. This highlights a potential procedural dispute within Parliament regarding the appropriate mechanism for oversight.
The GoldBod CEO reiterated that Mr. Bonsu is a licensed Tier Two gold buyer under GoldBod’s regulatory framework. He explained that GoldBod’s licensing system is digital, issuing licenses based on qualification rather than political affiliation. This clarifies the nature of Mr. Bonsu’s relationship with GoldBod, framing it as a professional, regulated one rather than a personal or illicit connection.
The ongoing controversy underscores the need for transparency and robust governance in Ghana’s state-owned enterprises. The public and financial markets will closely watch how these allegations are addressed and whether a formal investigation proceeds. The outcome could influence perceptions of Ghana’s investment climate and the integrity of its public institutions.