Minority demands answers over GH¢22bn Gold Purchase Programme exposure
The Minority in Parliament has intensified its call for accountability over the financial implications of the Bank of Ghana’s (BoG) Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP), arguing that the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) cannot avoid scrutiny over billions of dollars in gold transactions carried out on behalf of the central bank.
Deputy Minority Leader Patricia Appiagyei, in a statement issued on Saturday, August 22, said the Minority’s concerns were not aimed at undermining GoldBod but reflected Parliament’s responsibility to demand transparency in the management of public funds.
Her comments follow a growing dispute between the Minority Caucus and GoldBod Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi over how the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) assessment of the programme should be interpreted.
The disagreement focuses on the financial implications of the DGPP, through which the BoG significantly increased its domestic gold purchases in 2025 as part of efforts to strengthen Ghana’s foreign reserves and support the foreign exchange market.
According to the IMF, the BoG had purchased gold worth about US$7.6 billion under the programme by August 2025, including approximately US$5 billion in doré gold sourced from artisanal and small-scale miners. GoldBod played a role in the purchasing and related operations.
The Minority has interpreted the IMF’s findings as indicating about US$1.7 billion in under-recoveries linked to the programme, which is estimated at roughly GH¢22 billion based on the exchange rate being used in the ongoing debate.
Mrs Appiagyei said the magnitude of the figures warranted a thorough examination rather than political arguments and denials.
She said the key questions were whether Ghana obtained sufficient value from the resources committed to the programme and whether the institutions involved maintained proper financial controls, risk management and oversight.
She added that the Minority would not be diverted by what she described as personal exchanges between the Caucus and the GoldBod CEO.
“The issue before us is accountability. It is about public money, public gold and the management of a programme that involved billions of dollars. Ghanaians deserve clear answers,” she said.
Mr Gyamfi has dismissed the Minority’s interpretation of the figures, insisting that claims GoldBod suffered a US$1.7 billion loss are inaccurate.
He pointed to GoldBod’s audited 2025 financial statements, which he said recorded an operational surplus of GH¢907 million and an overall surplus of GH¢5.4 billion.
The GoldBod CEO has also explained that the institution’s role in the 2025 arrangement was mainly to purchase, assay and export gold on behalf of the BoG. According to him, the central bank remained responsible for trading the gold and selling it to off-takers.
Mr Gyamfi has therefore challenged the Minority to identify any section of the IMF report that directly attributes the US$1.7 billion figure to GoldBod.
The Minority, however, maintains that debating which institution formally recorded the financial loss should not prevent scrutiny of the transactions and activities that created the exposure.
Mrs Appiagyei argued that GoldBod’s role as an agent or intermediary did not eliminate the need for accountability over how the transactions were conducted.
She said GoldBod occupied a crucial position in the domestic gold market, overseeing activities including the purchase, weighing, grading, assaying, valuation and export of gold.
The Minority is consequently demanding greater transparency on the pricing arrangements, discounts, premiums, fees, off-taker agreements and other commercial conditions attached to the transactions.
It also wants clarification on the relationship between GoldBod and the BoG, particularly why the central bank should assume the financial risks associated with transactions in which GoldBod played a significant operational role.
The Caucus argues that these issues require closer examination because the programme involved public funds and was promoted as an important measure for rebuilding Ghana’s reserves and supporting the cedi.
The controversy has since expanded into a broader discussion about the management of Ghana’s gold reserves and the extent to which the central bank should engage in commercial activities.
The IMF has acknowledged that the DGPP contributed to the rebuilding of Ghana’s external buffers. By the end of 2025, the country’s gross international reserves had almost doubled to approximately US$11.9 billion, with strong gold receipts contributing to the increase.
At the same time, the Fund has called on Ghana to phase out quasi-fiscal activities and improve the institutional framework governing domestic gold purchases.
Mrs Appiagyei said this was why the issue should not be treated merely as a political dispute between the Minority and Mr Gyamfi.
She stressed that Parliament has a constitutional duty to examine how public resources are used and ensure that institutions entrusted with national assets operate transparently.
The Minority, she said, would continue pursuing the matter through the appropriate parliamentary procedures.
“The personalities may change, governments may change, but accountability remains. We owe it to the Ghanaian people to establish what happened to their resources and who must answer for it,” she said.
About The Author
