IERPP Questions Ghana’s $2.62bn FDI

Ghana’s reported US$2.62 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2025 has attracted praise as a sign of sustained investor confidence, but the Institute of Economic Research and Public Policy (IERPP) is asking whether the country is paying enough attention to the financial losses associated with its Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP).

The Institute has warned that celebrating foreign capital inflows without thoroughly examining the reported losses under the gold programme risks presenting an incomplete picture of Ghana’s economic performance.

According to IERPP, figures emerging from discussions surrounding the programme indicate estimated losses of GH¢22 billion, equivalent to approximately US$1.7 billion. The Institute argues that the scale of the reported losses deserves the same level of public attention as the positive investment figures being celebrated.

The comparison has raised important questions about the management of public resources, the costs of gold purchasing operations and the need for greater transparency in Ghana’s economic decision-making.

Prof. Isaac Boadi, Executive Director of IERPP, acknowledged that attracting US$2.62 billion in foreign direct investment represents an encouraging development for an economy seeking stronger growth, employment opportunities and improved productive capacity.

“Certainly, we should acknowledge Ghana’s capacity to draw US$2.62 billion in foreign direct investment,” said Prof. Isaac Boadi, Executive Director of IERPP.

“It is a sign that in spite of the economic challenges we are experiencing, international investors still have confidence in the opportunities in Ghana. But we cannot be happy about the money flowing into the economy when we are not looking at the big losses happening in the economy.”

The Institute is not dismissing the importance of foreign investment. Instead, it wants policymakers and the public to consider whether Ghana is managing its existing resources efficiently while working to attract additional capital.

FDI can support job creation, introduce new technologies, expand infrastructure and strengthen productive industries. It can also generate foreign exchange and create opportunities for local businesses.

However, IERPP believes these benefits should be considered alongside the financial implications of major public programmes.

The reported GH¢22 billion loss under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme has become the centre of the Institute’s concerns.

At approximately US1.7billion, the reported figure represents around 65% of the value of Ghana’s US2.62 billion FDI inflows. The comparison illustrates the magnitude of the reported programme losses relative to the foreign capital attracted into the economy.

“Every US$1 that Ghana attracts in FDI, the reported loss under the Domestic Gold Purchase Program is equivalent to about 65 cents,” Prof. Boadi observed.

The comparison, however, requires careful interpretation. The Institute has stressed that the reported loss does not mean Ghana lost its FDI or that GoldBod was responsible for the entire amount.

“Not that the FDI was lost or that GoldBod was responsible for the entire loss of US$1.7 billion. The point is to show the magnitude of the loss relative to the capital we are celebrating” Prof. Isaac Boadi.

This distinction is important because the reported losses relate to the programme as a whole. Attributing the entire amount to GoldBod would go beyond the Institute’s stated position.

Nevertheless, IERPP wants the costs and charges associated with GoldBod to be properly examined as part of a broader assessment of the programme’s financial performance.

The Institute is calling for a clearer explanation of how the reported losses accumulated, what costs were incurred and how much revenue the programme generated.

It also wants greater scrutiny of GoldBod-related fees and charges and their contribution to the overall financial outcome.

Such information would help Parliament, taxpayers and economic analysts distinguish between operational expenses, revenues, financing costs and other factors that may have influenced the programme’s performance.

Without a detailed breakdown, it becomes difficult for the public to assess the programme’s financial implications or determine whether its economic objectives justify the reported costs.

The demand for transparency does not automatically establish wrongdoing. Rather, it highlights the importance of making sufficient information available to support an informed assessment of a major public economic initiative.

“When the figures are positive, we must celebrate them; when the figures reveal significant losses, we must ask difficult questions. Both are necessary for a credible economic conversation.”