Economist Professor Godfred Alufar Bokpin has cautioned against crediting the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) for Ghana’s recent macroeconomic stability. He asserts that the broader gains in economic stability stem from effective fiscal and monetary policies, not GoldBod’s operations.
Professor Bokpin acknowledges GoldBod’s positive impact in reducing gold smuggling. The Board also successfully increased the amount of gold-related foreign exchange entering the formal economy. However, he believes the domestic gold purchase programme, spearheaded by GoldBod, has incurred significant financial losses for Ghana.
This perspective places GoldBod’s role within Ghana’s broader economic narrative, which has seen efforts to stabilise the cedi and manage public finances. The government and the Bank of Ghana have implemented various measures to address economic challenges. These include debt restructuring and inflation control. GoldBod’s activities are part of a larger strategy to boost foreign exchange reserves and formalise the gold sector.
“This whole domestic gold purchase arrangement for which Gold Board essentially became the face of it from 2025 has also come at a significant loss to us,” Professor Bokpin stated. He added that these losses must be considered when evaluating the programme’s overall impact. He also noted that the government, GoldBod, and the Bank of Ghana recognise these losses are unsustainable.
The economist's remarks imply a need for a re-evaluation of the GoldBod programme’s design and financial implications. Decision-makers will likely scrutinise the cost-benefit analysis of such interventions. Markets and investors will watch for any policy adjustments regarding gold exports and foreign exchange management. This could influence future economic outlooks and investor confidence.
Professor Bokpin highlighted that macroeconomic stability is primarily the responsibility of monetary and fiscal authorities. He explained that the Bank of Ghana and other government bodies drive this stability. GoldBod’s mandate focuses on specific aspects of the gold trade, not overall economic management. Its contributions should be viewed within that narrower scope.
He pointed out design flaws in the programme that could have been avoided with better planning. These defects have contributed to the financial losses. The economist stressed that the benefits of GoldBod must be weighed against its implementation costs. This comprehensive assessment is crucial for informed policy decisions.
Professor Bokpin cited reported losses connected to the domestic gold purchase programme. He suggested the actual cost could be much higher than publicly discussed figures. “Now, we are talking about 22 billion Ghana cedis or 1.7 billion Ghana cedis,” he said. He further clarified that a holistic approach reveals losses exceeding $1.7 billion.
Another cost to the state, according to Bokpin, was the abolition of the 1.5% withholding tax. This tax applied to artisanal and small-scale gold production. Removing this tax reduced potential government revenue. This decision further impacts the fiscal health of the nation.
The fiscal implications become significant when considering the total value of gold exports from artisanal and small-scale miners. These exports exceed $10 billion annually. The lost tax revenue could have funded critical infrastructure projects. These include roads, schools, and other public services.
Despite his concerns, Professor Bokpin acknowledged GoldBod’s positive contributions. “I recognise the impact of Gold Board, and I celebrate the progress that they have made in terms of crowding in gold-related FX,” he stated. He maintained, however, that the substantial financial losses should not be overlooked.
An exit plan is reportedly being pursued to reduce the programme’s losses. This plan aims to cut losses from about 17% or 14.5% to approximately 5%. This indicates a recognition by authorities of the need for financial adjustments. Such adjustments are vital for the long-term sustainability of Ghana’s gold sector policies.