Sammy Gyamfi, Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), has accused the New Patriotic Party (NPP) of hypocrisy. He stated the NPP is now criticizing financial costs associated with the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme. This comes after the party previously defended similar expenditures under the Gold-for-Oil (G4O) programme.
Mr. Gyamfi's comments follow the NPP's earlier response to IMANI Africa. IMANI Africa had alleged GHS 7.2 billion in financial leakages within the G4O programme. The NPP, in a statement dated September 29, 2025, rejected these claims. They described the allegations as misleading and unsupported by verifiable financial records.
This situation highlights a broader debate about transparency and accountability in Ghana's resource-backed economic strategies. Both the G4O and Domestic Gold Purchase programmes aim to stabilize the cedi and secure essential imports. However, their financial structures and reported costs have drawn scrutiny from various stakeholders. The Bank of Ghana's role in providing liquidity support is central to these discussions.
Speaking on JoyNews, Mr. Gyamfi quoted the NPP's previous statement. He highlighted their argument that costs incurred by the Bank of Ghana (BoG) under the G4O programme represented foreign exchange liquidity support. The NPP had maintained these were not evidence of financial mismanagement or corruption. “BOG transparently reported its foreign liquidity support cost,” Mr. Gyamfi quoted the NPP as saying.
Mr. Gyamfi questioned why the NPP now treats financial costs in the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme as recklessness. He argued that the same principle used to defend the G4O programme should apply. Accounting losses should not be viewed in isolation, he explained. Instead, the broader economic benefits generated by the programme must be considered. This includes the stability provided to the national currency and the availability of essential goods.
The Gold-for-Oil programme, launched in 2022, aimed to reduce pressure on Ghana's foreign exchange reserves. It allowed the country to pay for imported petroleum products with gold rather than U.S. dollars. This initiative was part of a wider government strategy to manage the cedi's depreciation and mitigate rising fuel costs. The Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, similarly, seeks to bolster the Bank of Ghana's gold reserves and strengthen the cedi.
The NPP's previous defense of the G4O programme emphasized the necessity of these expenditures. They were described as crucial for facilitating petroleum imports and stabilizing foreign exchange supply. The party had also pointed to the traceability of the Bank of Ghana’s seed capital. They noted the publication of reported costs in the central bank’s audited financial statements. This suggests a framework for transparency was already in place.
Mr. Gyamfi acknowledged the legitimacy of examining whether the programme could achieve its goals at a lower cost. However, he maintained that financial costs alone do not prove corruption or mismanagement. He called for consistency from the NPP in its assessment of the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme. This requires distinguishing between accounting costs and actual financial wrongdoing. The debate underscores the need for clear, consistent economic policy communication.
The ongoing discussion reflects the challenges Ghana faces in managing its natural resources for economic stability. Public confidence in these programmes depends on transparent reporting and consistent evaluation criteria. Decision-makers will need to address these concerns to ensure long-term success and public trust. The outcome of this debate could influence future resource management policies and public finance strategies.