Ghana's Parliament is currently debating the financial implications of the government's gold purchasing programme. The Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has demanded a detailed breakdown of reported Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) losses. He stated the government, through GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana (BoG), lost US$1.7 billion, which equals about GHS 22 billion.
This significant figure, according to Mr. Afenyo-Markin, requires a parliamentary investigation. He highlighted that the Minority filed a motion on August 20, 2026, seeking an ad hoc committee. This committee would investigate the reported amount and provide a detailed account of how the funds were lost. The Minority believes the committee should have powers to summon documents and witnesses. It would also establish how much of the US$1.7 billion was due to foreign exchange movements, gold purchase and selling prices, and official decisions.
The debate comes at a critical time for Ghana's economy, which has faced challenges with currency stability and inflation. The government's gold purchasing program was introduced as a measure to shore up the country's foreign exchange reserves and support the local currency. This parliamentary clash underscores ongoing tensions between the government and opposition regarding economic management and transparency. Previous reports from international bodies, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have often emphasized the need for fiscal discipline and clear accounting of public funds.
Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga rejected the Minority's characterisation of the reported losses. He insisted that these figures represent costs associated with a deliberate policy to support the economy. Mr. Ayariga argued the policy helped stabilise the cedi, strengthened the currency, and kept inflation at a relatively low level. He stated, “What you call losses are actually costs that this country has to pay in order to maintain the strength of our currency today.”
Mr. Ayariga further explained that an expansion in the volume of gold purchased contributed to the amount the Minority describes as losses. He maintained the policy generated wider economic benefits, including currency stability, lower inflation, and improved debt repayment capacity. The Majority therefore stands firmly behind GoldBod and its management, as well as the Finance Minister's handling of the country's finances. Mr. Ayariga also mentioned that concerns from the World Bank and IMF do not mean abandoning the gold purchasing policy. He clarified that international financial institutions suggest losses from the program should be borne by the government, not the central bank. Reforms are underway to shift these transactions from the BoG to the government, addressing these concerns.
The implications of this parliamentary disagreement are significant for Ghana's economic outlook. A full investigation could provide much-needed clarity on the financial health of the gold purchasing program and its impact on the Bank of Ghana. If the reported losses are confirmed, it could necessitate a recapitalisation of the central bank, placing an additional burden on taxpayers. Conversely, if the Majority's explanation of policy costs is accepted, it could reinforce confidence in the government's economic strategies. Investors and international partners will closely watch the outcome of this debate. The transparency and accountability demonstrated by Parliament will be crucial in shaping perceptions of Ghana's financial governance. The ongoing reforms to shift transaction responsibility from the BoG to the government will also be a key area to monitor for their effectiveness in mitigating future financial risks and ensuring fiscal prudence.