Ghana’s parliamentary Minority has demanded full accountability from the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) for a reported US$1.7 billion (GHS 22 billion) loss. Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin stated that GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi admitted the loss under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) but failed to explain it adequately. This significant financial discrepancy has triggered a renewed call for transparency regarding public funds.
The Minority’s strong reaction follows Mr. Gyamfi’s defence of GoldBod, which the opposition claims confirmed the loss rather than rebutting it. Mr. Afenyo-Markin highlighted that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported the US$1.7 billion loss in 2025. He argued that the CEO only disputed responsibility for the loss, not its existence. The Minority insists that public money is involved, regardless of which state institution ultimately bears the financial burden.
This dispute fits into a broader narrative of financial scrutiny surrounding state-owned enterprises and public programmes in Ghana. The country has been navigating economic challenges, making the transparent management of public funds crucial. Previous reports from the IMF, such as the Sixth Country Report, No. 26/213, have often highlighted areas needing improved financial governance. The DGPP, aimed at boosting Ghana’s gold reserves and stabilising the cedi, is now under intense political and public examination.
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin stated, “The loss is admitted. The Chief Executive does not dispute the IMF’s finding that there is a loss of US$1.7 billion (22 billion Ghana cedis) under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025.” He further emphasised that this involves “public money, whichever State balance sheet it sits on,” underscoring the need for a thorough explanation from GoldBod.
The implications of this ongoing dispute are significant for public trust and financial oversight. Decision-makers will closely watch GoldBod’s response and any parliamentary action. The Minority intends to pursue a motion in Parliament to compel GoldBod’s management to fully account for the DGPP’s financial implications. This could lead to further investigations or policy changes regarding how state-backed programmes are managed and funded, potentially impacting investor confidence and Ghana’s economic stability.
Mr. Afenyo-Markin also challenged Mr. Gyamfi’s claim of a GHS 907 million operational surplus for GoldBod in 2025. The Minority Leader pointed out that GoldBod accounted for approximately GHS 133 billion in advances under the DGPP. He noted that GoldBod received an assay fee of 0.258 per cent and a service fee of 0.5 per cent. Based on these figures, the Minority estimated GoldBod earned around GHS 1 billion in fees from the programme.
This suggests that GoldBod’s agency fees were higher than the reported operational surplus. Mr. Afenyo-Markin argued that if these agency fees were removed, there would be no operational surplus to celebrate. He accused GoldBod of taking credit for economic benefits, such as a 41 per cent cedi appreciation and increased reserves from US$8.9 billion to US$13 billion, while distancing itself from the programme’s losses. The Minority Leader stated, “An institution that claims authorship of the benefits cannot describe itself as a passive agent when the costs are counted.”
Concerns also extend to GoldBod’s funding arrangements. Mr. Afenyo-Markin noted that responsibility for the Ghana Agriculture and Natural Resources Platform (GANRAP) reportedly shifted from the Bank of Ghana to the Ministry of Finance in July 2026. GoldBod was also seeking to raise funds independently from August. The Minority views these “three funding arrangements in six months” as an unsettled model, raising questions about financial stability and governance.
The Minority Leader also criticised Mr. Gyamfi’s use of inappropriate language, specifically a reference to a “brothel,” when responding to the allegations. Mr. Afenyo-Markin stated that such language does not belong in a public officer’s statement accounting for public funds. He concluded that Ghanaians asked for figures but received insults, with the financial figures still outstanding. This ongoing disagreement underscores the need for clear, factual communication from public officials regarding financial matters.