IT STINKS: IMF Reveals GH¢22bn GoldBod Loss, Minority Demands Probe

The Minority in Parliament has called for an immediate investigation into the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, citing a new report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that reveals losses of 1.7 billion US dollars, equivalent to GH¢22 billion in 2025 alone.

Addressing a press conference in Parliament on Tuesday, Minority Leader Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin said the IMF’s Sixth Review of Ghana’s Extended Credit Facility programme, completed on 10 July 2026, has confirmed the financial consequences of the government’s gold purchasing arrangement.

“This is not speculation. It is not an allegation manufactured by the Minority. It is not partisan interpretation. It is the finding reported by the International Monetary Fund after examining Ghana’s economic and financial programme and it demands honest answers,” Minority Leader Afenyo-Markin stated.

The Minority Leader, who is also Member of Parliament for Effutu Constituency, said the losses represent approximately 1.5 per cent of Ghana’s entire Gross Domestic Product.

GoldBod’s Role Under Scrutiny

Osahen Afenyo-Markin addressed what he described as a tendency in public discussion to confuse two separate questions: whether GoldBod itself reported an accounting loss, and whether the gold trading arrangement generated losses ultimately borne by the Bank of Ghana and the Ghanaian public.

“These are not the same questions. GoldBod may say that the 1.7 billion USD does not appear as a loss in its own statement of financial performance. But that does not make the GH¢22 billion disappear,” he said. “The IMF says that the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme generated 1.7 billion USD in losses in 2025.”

He explained that under the financing arrangement, GoldBod acted as a buying agent for the Bank of Ghana. GoldBod has confirmed that it continued the previous buying-agent arrangement, purchased and aggregated gold using funding provided by the Bank of Ghana, and that the Bank of Ghana incurred the costs associated with the gold aggregation arrangement.

“From the transaction arrangement between GoldBod and BoG, GoldBod was not an uninvolved spectator. It is the institution with the statutory and operational mandate to buy, sell, weigh, grade, assay, value and export gold and other precious minerals in Ghana,” Osahen Afenyo-Markin said.

He stated that GoldBod participated directly in buying, aggregating, assaying and exporting the gold, while the Bank of Ghana provided the financing and GoldBod earned fees from the transactions.

“But when the programme generated substantial financial losses, those losses were not reported on the balance sheet of GoldBod. This arrangement requires much deeper scrutiny than Government has so far been willing to provide,” he said.

IMF Report Details Losses

The Minority Leader noted that the IMF’s Fifth Review had previously raised concerns about an estimated US$214 million quasi-fiscal loss identified through September 2025.

He quoted directly from IMF Country Report No. 26/213, which stated: “Losses accrued on gold trades are a combination of service and assay fees paid to GoldBod, discounts on gold sold to off-takers (exporters) and, most importantly, exchange rate losses from the spread between the forex bureau rate paid to purchase gold and the cedi reference rate used for BoG accounting.”

“The real question is: What did Ghana lose from the transactions? The IMF has now answered that question for the full year. GH¢22 billion. Approximately 1.5% of GDP. The scale should concern every Ghanaian,” Osahen Afenyo-Markin said.

“A loss of this magnitude cannot be brushed aside merely because the accounting structure allowed one public institution to record fee income while another public institution carried the losses. The Ghanaian taxpayer ultimately stands behind both institutions.”

Risk Allocation Questioned

The Minority Leader questioned the governance structure of the arrangement.

“If one state institution is responsible for buying, aggregating, assaying and exporting gold while another state institution supplies the capital and bears virtually all of the downside, Parliament is entitled to ask whether the risk allocation itself was prudent,” he said.

He warned that the structure creates an obvious governance problem where incentives can become dangerously misaligned.

“The institution making or influencing operational decisions may enjoy the upside of increased volumes and fees without carrying an equivalent share of the downside when transactions perform poorly,” Osahen Afenyo-Markin said.

He added: “These questions cannot be answered with slogans about reserve accumulation. They require documents, numbers and accountability.”

Specific Questions for GoldBod

Osahen Afenyo-Markin said GoldBod is entitled to make the accounting point that it was purchasing gold on behalf of the Bank of Ghana, but agency does not extinguish operational responsibility.

“An agent entrusted with billions of cedis of public resources remains responsible for the quality of its execution,” he said.

Osahen Afenyo-Markin listed specific questions GoldBod must answer:

 

What prices were paid for gold?

How were those prices determined?

What premiums, if any, were paid to secure supply?

How were international off-takers selected?

At what discounts was doré gold sold?

How much was earned by GoldBod in service and assay charges from transactions financed by the Bank of Ghana?

What commercial risks did GoldBod itself bear?

What internal risk controls existed to protect the financier?

“Most importantly: If GoldBod controlled critical parts of the trading process but BoG absorbed the losses, where precisely did commercial accountability reside? That question goes to the heart of this matter,” he said.

Arrangement Requires Scrutiny

The Minority Leader described the structure as creating a potential moral-hazard problem.

“If an institution earns transaction-based income for purchasing, assaying and aggregating gold, while the financier bears the underlying trading losses, then increasing transaction volumes may increase the agent’s revenues even where the overall programme destroys value for the principal,” he said.

“A business model where one entity earns fees and another absorbs losses requires scrutiny. It stinks!” he declared.

Policy Reversal Raises Questions

The Minority Leader noted that the Bank of Ghana resolved to stop financing GoldBod’s gold purchases after the experience of the old financing model.

He said GoldBod announced on 11 August 2026 that it had ended its role as a buying agent for the Bank of Ghana, and that since March 2026 it had ceased receiving BoG funds to purchase gold on the Bank’s behalf.

“A financing arrangement that was repeatedly defended has now been substantially dismantled. Why?” Osahen Afenyo-Markin asked.

He listed further questions: “If the original structure was financially sound, properly priced and adequately risk-managed, why has the Bank of Ghana stopped financing GoldBod’s purchases? Why is the IMF insisting that the activity be moved away from the central bank? Why has GoldBod moved towards commercial and off-taker financing?”

“These are legitimate questions. The Ghanaian people deserve honest answers,” Osahen noted

Appeal to President Mahama

The Minority Leader addressed President John Mahama directly, citing Article 257, clause 6, of the 1992 Constitution.

“Every mineral in this country is the property of the Republic. It is vested in the President, on behalf of, and in trust for, the people of Ghana. Not for a favoured few. Not for unnamed off-takers. For every Ghanaian, born and unborn. That is not a political statement. That is the supreme law of our land,” Mr Afenyo-Markin said.

He continued: “GoldBod has just delivered the single largest financial loss in the recent history of the Bank of Ghana. Mr President, you have a constitutional duty to act. Not tomorrow. Not after another report. But now! Protect this economy! Protect this trust! Protect the people who elected your government.”

Fresh Parliamentary Motion Planned

Osahen Afenyo-Markin announced that the Minority would file a fresh motion when Parliament resumes to compel a full parliamentary probe into the losses.

He added: “Our earlier motion was put to a vote and lost. That was a conclusion,” he said. “But the motion we bring now rests on new matters: this new IMF report, the 22 billion cedis loss for 2025, the negative equity of our central bank, and the fresh call for investigation from our own Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. This is a different, graver question

“So, we announce here today. When this House resumes, the Minority will make a fresh effort to cause a full Parliamentary probe into these losses. You may use your numbers to frustrate accountability today. But truth does not disappear because it is outvoted. The day of accountability will come. It always does.”

Demand for Transparency

The Minority Leader directly addressed GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi.

“Forget the bitter friend story. Bring the ledgers. Bring the list of every off-taker and aggregator. Bring the audited accounts. Come to Parliament, not a Space, and answer for the 22 billion cedis,” Osahen Afenyo-Markin said.

“Ghana’s gold belongs to Ghana. Not to a favoured few. Not to unnamed off-takers pocketing hidden discounts. Not to anyone who thinks an insult can replace an answer. And certainly not to a government that would rather whip votes than demand answers.”

“The numbers do not lie. History will remember those who asked the hard questions, those who blocked them, and those who looked away when duty called, and finally those who kept fighting regardless,” Osahen Afenyo-Markin concluded.