BY Issah Olegor
The political controversy over the gold-for-reserves programme has taken another turn, with the Minority in Parliament accusing Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi of taking personal and institutional credit for the gains associated with the government’s gold strategy while distancing himself and GoldBod from the financial losses recorded under the programme.
The Minority’s criticism comes amid a growing dispute over the Bank of Ghana’s (BoG) Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP), the role played by GoldBod in purchasing gold, the fees earned by the institution and the reported US$1.7 billion loss recorded by the central bank under the programme in 2025.
At the centre of the controversy is a question of responsibility: whether GoldBod should be regarded merely as an agent involved in the gold-purchasing process when losses are recorded, or as a key institution responsible for the wider programme when the economic benefits are being celebrated.
The Minority argues that Sammy Gyamfi’s public posture has been inconsistent.
According to the Caucus, the GoldBod CEO has repeatedly highlighted the institution’s achievements whenever the gold business produces positive results, including using his social media platforms and public communications to promote GoldBod’s performance as part of the government’s economic transformation agenda.
But when the financial consequences of the programme become negative, the Minority says, Gyamfi changes position and places the responsibility on the Bank of Ghana.
The Caucus considers that approach hypocritical and says the GoldBod CEO must account for both the gains and costs associated with the programme.
The $1.7bn Question
The dispute intensified after the IMF reported that the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme generated losses of more than US$1.7 billion in 2025.
The IMF explained that the losses arose from several factors, including service and assay fees paid to GoldBod, discounts on gold sold to off-takers and, most importantly, exchange-rate losses resulting from the difference between the forex bureau rate used to purchase gold and the cedi reference rate used for accounting by the Bank of Ghana.
The IMF also stated that some of the losses represented valuation effects rather than purely economic costs, although the losses nevertheless weakened the central bank’s balance sheet.
The figure has since become the centrepiece of the political battle between the Minority and the GoldBod leadership.
Sammy Gyamfi has rejected the characterisation that GoldBod itself incurred a GH¢22 billion loss.
At the Government Accountability Series on Wednesday, August 19, he acknowledged that losses can occur in gold trading but urged critics to be accurate.
Admission
“Nobody is saying there hasn’t been loss, but be factual about it,” he said.
His argument is that GoldBod must be assessed according to its own audited financial performance rather than being blamed for losses recorded by the Bank of Ghana under the DGPP.
GoldBod’s audited accounts
Sammy Gyamfi has pointed to GoldBod’s audited 2025 financial statements as evidence that the institution did not make the loss being attributed to it by critics.
According to the GoldBod CEO, the institution recorded an operational surplus of GH¢907 million and an overall surplus of more than GH¢5.4 billion.
He has therefore challenged the Minority’s claim of a GH¢22 billion GoldBod loss, arguing that the IMF figure relates to the Bank of Ghana’s DGPP operations.
GoldBod has also explained that its role under the programme was primarily that of a buying agent and that it did not determine the prices or terms at which the Bank of Ghana subsequently sold the gold.
That distinction forms the foundation of Gyamfi’s defence.
Minority challenges the distinction
The Minority, however, says Gyamfi cannot simultaneously claim credit for the programme’s economic benefits and disassociate GoldBod from its costs.
In its response to Gyamfi’s August 19 statement, the Caucus pointed to claims made by the GoldBod CEO concerning the economic impact of the scaling-up of the DGPP.
Sammy Gyamfi has associated the programme with Ghana’s increased international reserves, the appreciation of the cedi and the reduction in inflation.
The Minority argues that if GoldBod is prepared to take credit for those positive outcomes, it cannot describe itself as merely a passive agent when the programme’s financial costs are being discussed.
In other words, the Minority’s contention is that the institution cannot claim the upside while disowning the downside.
The Caucus has therefore demanded a clearer explanation of how GoldBod’s role should be understood within the entire gold-for-reserves structure.
Another major area of disagreement concerns the fees GoldBod received for its services.
Sammy Gyamfi disclosed that GoldBod accounted for approximately GH¢133 billion in advances during 2025 and received an assay fee of 0.258% as well as a service fee of 0.5%.
The Minority has used those figures to argue that GoldBod earned approximately GH¢1 billion in fees from the programme.
The Caucus has questioned how an institution could record an operational surplus of GH¢907 million while earning substantial fees from a programme that resulted in the reported US$1.7 billion loss for the Bank of Ghana.
GoldBod, however, maintains that the fees were legitimate payments for services rendered.
The assay fee, according to Mr Gyamfi’s explanation, relates to the institution’s role as the national assayer, while the service fee covers costs associated with the gold aggregation process.
The GoldBod CEO has argued that receiving legitimate contractual fees does not make GoldBod responsible for losses incurred by another independent state institution.
Did BoG stop financing GoldBod?
Another development now emerging from the dispute concerns the financing arrangements between the Bank of Ghana and GoldBod.
Gyamfi has stated that the Bank of Ghana was not “financing” GoldBod in the conventional sense when it advanced funds for gold purchases.
His position is that the central bank was funding purchases under its own gold programme, with GoldBod serving as a buying agent.
According to the GoldBod CEO, once GoldBod’s own trading model commenced, the institution received funding for artisanal and small-scale mining gold purchases under arrangements involving the Bank of Ghana and the GoldBod.
He has also said that from August 2026 GoldBod indicated its intention to raise funds for its own gold purchases without the Bank of Ghana acting as an intermediary.
The development has generated further questions about the future relationship between the two institutions.
Dollar payments become another flashpoint
Amid the changing funding arrangement, GoldBod has also communicated with gold dealers concerning the routing of dollar payments.
According to the information presented in the controversy, Gyamfi has written to gold dealers instructing them not to continue making dollar payments into Bank of Ghana accounts under the previous arrangement.
The development is significant because it signals a shift away from the earlier structure in which the central bank played a direct role in financing or facilitating the purchase of gold under the programme.
However, the materials provided do not establish that the Bank of Ghana has completely withdrawn from all forms of collaboration with GoldBod.
Why the BoG’s role matters
The controversy is complicated by the fact that the Bank of Ghana, rather than GoldBod, recorded the losses identified by the IMF.
The IMF reported that the central bank’s DGPP losses exceeded US$1.7 billion in 2025 and that its negative equity reached 6.7% of GDP at the end of that year.
The Bank of Ghana’s exposure to the programme is therefore central to the Minority’s argument that the financial consequences cannot simply be dismissed as an accounting issue belonging to another institution.
The Minority insists that the money involved ultimately belongs to the state.
Its position is that whether the loss appears on GoldBod’s books, the Bank of Ghana’s books or another government balance sheet, the Ghanaian taxpayer has a legitimate interest in understanding how it arose.
Gyamfi’s counterargument
Gyamfi has pushed back strongly against that interpretation.
He says GoldBod is a specialised gold-trading institution and that losses are an inherent part of commodity trading.
He explained that GoldBod does not only purchase physical gold but also trades derivatives and operates continuously in international gold markets.
His argument is that individual trades can generate profits or losses, but the ultimate test should be whether the institution produces an overall profit.
“In trading, you can make profit, you can make losses. We’re going to ensure that at the end of the year, your overall profit is more than your losses,” he said.
He has also maintained that GoldBod’s audited accounts demonstrate that the institution has not recorded the GH¢22 billion loss alleged by the Minority.
The argument over who deserves credit
The most politically sensitive aspect of the dispute is now the question of credit.
The Minority argues that Gyamfi has publicly celebrated GoldBod’s achievements and the broader economic outcomes associated with the gold-for-reserves programme.
