BY Daniel Bampoe
A fresh political backlash has erupted on social media against the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, following his fiery response to Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin in the escalating controversy over the operations and financial affairs of GoldBod.
The latest criticism comes from P.K. Sarpong, who has condemned Gyamfi’s choice of language during his response to the Minority Leader, arguing that the GoldBod chief executive crossed the line between robust political debate and personal attacks.
In a strongly worded message addressed directly to Sammy Gyamfi, Sarpong called on him to respect the office of the Minority Leader and apologise for remarks he considers inappropriate for a senior public official.
The controversy stems from comments made by Gyamfi during the Government Accountability Series on Wednesday, August 19, 2026, when he responded to Afenyo-Markin’s warning that GoldBod executives and other officials could face difficult legal consequences if the New Patriotic Party (NPP) returns to power.
Gyamfi responded defiantly, saying that any prospect of imprisonment and restrictive bail conditions existed only in the Minority Leader’s imagination.
His remark that he would have “onerous bail terms in your brain” has since become a major point of political discussion, with critics accusing the GoldBod CEO of lowering the standard of public discourse.
Sarpong, in his reaction, argued that the office held by Afenyo-Markin should be treated with institutional respect regardless of political disagreements.
He maintained that leadership in public office requires emotional intelligence, decorum and political maturity, particularly when senior political actors engage on matters of national importance.
According to him, the Minority Leader’s questions concerning GoldBod and government policy should have received a substantive and evidence-based response rather than what he described as personal slights and insulting rhetoric.
Sarpong’s criticism was built around three principal arguments.
First, he accused Gyamfi of disrespecting a constitutional parliamentary office. He argued that the position of Minority Leader carries considerable institutional significance and that attacking the occupant of the office could be interpreted as showing disregard for the democratic institutions within which political disagreements are supposed to be resolved.
“Regardless of political differences, the position of the Minority Leader carries significant institutional weight,” Sarpong argued.
He said public officials must distinguish between attacking a policy position and attacking the individual raising questions about that policy.
His second concern was what he described as an avoidance of the substantive issues.
Sarpong argued that when political opponents raise questions concerning public policy, the appropriate response should involve facts, figures, documentation and clear explanations.
He suggested that resorting to personal attacks could create the impression that the person responding is unwilling or unable to engage directly with the substance of the allegations.
The criticism comes at a time when GoldBod is facing intense political scrutiny over the government’s gold purchasing arrangements and the financial implications of the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.
The Minority has been demanding greater accountability over reported losses associated with the Bank of Ghana’s gold operations, while GoldBod has strongly rejected claims that it recorded the reported losses
Gyamfi has repeatedly insisted that GoldBod’s audited 2025 accounts showed a substantial surplus and has argued that the US$1.7 billion loss cited in the IMF’s assessment relates to the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme rather than a loss suffered by GoldBod itself.
The GoldBod CEO has also challenged Afenyo-Markin to substantiate his allegations through Parliament and has insisted that he is prepared to account for GoldBod’s operations before the appropriate parliamentary committee.
However, Sarpong believes that defending GoldBod does not justify the use of language he considers disrespectful toward the Minority Leader.
His third criticism concerned the responsibilities attached to Gyamfi’s position as a chief executive of a major state institution.
According to Sarpong, a senior administrative official must maintain professionalism and restraint even when responding to severe criticism from political opponents.
He argued that public officials have a responsibility to elevate national debate rather than reduce disagreements to personal exchanges.
Sarpong also contended that Afenyo-Markin raised his concerns without the kind of personal hostility he believes would justify Gyamfi’s response.
“Alexander Afenyo-Markin presented his queries without personal hostility,” he stated, arguing that responding with contempt reflected poorly on the GoldBod CEO’s temperament and administrative conduct.
He therefore called on Sammy Gyamfi to apologise to the Minority Leader without delay.
The latest criticism adds another layer to an already bitter political confrontation surrounding GoldBod.
The dispute has evolved from questions about the financial performance of the institution and the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme into a wider political battle involving accusations of misinformation, threats of future prosecutions and increasingly personal exchanges between government and opposition figures.
For critics such as Sarpong, the controversy should not be allowed to destroy the standards expected of Ghanaian public officials.
He maintained that robust political engagement and institutional respect should be able to coexist, arguing that political leaders can disagree strongly without resorting to personal insults.
The social media reaction also reflects a broader debate over the conduct of public officials in Ghana’s increasingly polarised political environment.
Supporters of the government and GoldBod are likely to view Gyamfi’s response as a forceful defence against what they consider politically motivated attacks, while his critics argue that the manner in which he responded was inappropriate for someone occupying a senior public office.
At the centre of the disagreement remains the GoldBod controversy itself.
The Minority has continued to demand answers concerning the financial consequences of tne gold purchasing and reserve accumulation strategy, while GoldBod insists that its audited accounts demonstrate a positive financial performance and that the reported Bank of Ghana losses should not be attributed to the institution.
He concluded that Sammy Gyamfi had “goofed” in his response and should apologise to Afenyo-Markin, arguing that true leadership is demonstrated not merely through aggressive defence of one’s position but through “grace, substance and restraint.”
