Speaker Bagbin Rejects Minority’s Motion To Investigate Sale Of Gold Reserves At BoG

By Issah Olegor

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has rejected a Private Member’s motion filed by the Minority seeking a parliamentary investigation into the alleged sale of Ghana’s gold reserves by the Bank of Ghana, declaring the motion “inadmissible.”

The decision marks the latest development in an escalating political and policy debate over the management of the gold reserves and the performance of the Gold-for-Reserves programme.

The ruling was communicated through an official memorandum issued by the Clerk to Parliament on April 7, 2026, addressed to key sponsors of the motion- Abena Osei-Asare, MP for Atiwa East; Patrick Yaw Boamah, MP for Okaikwei Central and Isaac Boamah-Nyarko, MP for Effia.

Abena Osei-Asare
Patrick Yaw Boamah
Isaac Boamah-Nyarko

The memo confirmed that the Speaker had declined to admit the motion for consideration on the floor of the House.

The proposed motion, originally filed on February 9, 2026, sought to establish an ad hoc parliamentary committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding what the Minority described as the sale of 21 tonnes of the gold reserves.

The lawmakers argued that such a development, if confirmed, required urgent parliamentary scrutiny given the strategic importance of gold reserves to Ghana’s economic stability.

According to the Clerk’s memo, “I write to notify you that the Rt. Hon. Speaker has declined the motion,” effectively halting any immediate parliamentary action on the matter.

The rejected motion forms part of a broader push by the Minority to subject the gold reserves management to scrutiny, particularly in light of ongoing controversies surrounding the Gold-for-Reserves programme.

Introduced in 2021, the policy was designed to strengthen the foreign exchange reserves by purchasing gold domestically and reducing reliance on foreign currencies.

Over time, the programme has become a central component of Ghana’s macroeconomic strategy.

However, the policy has faced increasing criticism from opposition figures and analysts, especially following claims that the Bank of Ghana recorded losses of approximately $214 million in 2025 under gold trading by the GoldBod.

In December 2025, the Minority had already called for a bipartisan parliamentary investigation into these reported losses, arguing that the issue raises serious concerns about accountability, transparency and governance.

The latest motion to probe the alleged sale of gold reserves was therefore seen as a continuation of efforts by the Minority to deepen scrutiny of the central bank’s actions and the broader gold reserve policy framework.

Critics argue that any decision involving the liquidation of national gold reserves must be thoroughly explained, given its potential implications for Ghana’s financial stability and reserve management strategy.

The Speaker’s decision to declare the motion inadmissible has, however, effectively blocked the proposed investigation at the parliamentary level, at least for now.

While the specific legal or procedural grounds for the ruling were not detailed in the memo, such decisions are typically based on parliamentary rules governing admissibility of motions.

The development is likely to further intensify political debate over the issue, particularly as it follows earlier instances where attempts by the Minority to probe aspects of the Gold-for-Reserves programme were unsuccessful.

The opposition lawmakers have consistently argued that Parliament has a constitutional duty to exercise oversight over public financial management, especially in matters involving critical national assets such as gold reserves.

On the other hand, the NDC government-aligned voices have maintained that the Gold-for-Reserves programme and related decisions by the Bank of Ghana are part of broader economic strategies aimed at stabilising the economy and managing external vulnerabilities.

The rejection of the motion now leaves unanswered questions about the alleged sale of gold reserves and the financial performance of the programme, while also raising fresh concerns about the limits of parliamentary oversight in highly contested economic matters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *