The controversy surrounding the reported US$1.7 billion, equivalent to about GH¢22 billion, losses associated with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme has taken an unfortunate turn.
Instead of concentrating on the institutions, transactions and policy decisions that require public scrutiny, much of the debate has increasingly centred on personal attacks and attempts to damage the reputation of Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi.
That approach does little to answer the fundamental questions surrounding the reported losses.
If public funds were involved in transactions that resulted in losses of such magnitude, then the primary responsibility of Parliament, the Ministry of Finance, the Bank of Ghana and other relevant oversight institutions should be to establish exactly what happened, why it happened and how similar losses can be prevented in the future.
The public deserves answers—not distractions.
Where Was the Ministry of Finance?
One of the most important questions that deserves attention is the role of the Ministry of Finance.
If the Bank of Ghana committed approximately GH¢22 billion to gold-related transactions in 2025, Parliament and the public should be asking whether those transactions formed part of the approved 2025 national budget and under what financial framework they were undertaken.
Were the transactions properly captured within the government’s fiscal plans?
Were the necessary approvals obtained?
What was the reporting mechanism between the Bank of Ghana, the Ministry of Finance and Parliament?
These are not partisan questions. They are basic questions of public financial accountability.
The sheer size of the reported losses makes it imperative that the Ministry of Finance provides clarity on the fiscal and institutional arrangements underpinning the programme.
What Was the Bank of Ghana’s Role?
The Bank of Ghana must equally be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
The critical issue is not merely whether gold was purchased, but how the transactions were structured, authorised and executed.
What procurement procedures or methods were used?
How were the counterparties or off-takers selected?
Who were the off-takers involved in the transactions?
What due diligence was conducted on them?
What risk-management framework was applied?
And what safeguards existed to protect public resources against adverse movements in gold prices, foreign exchange exposure and other market risks?
These questions are particularly important because the reported losses are too substantial to be reduced to a political disagreement between individuals.
The Public Financial Management Question
There is also a legitimate need to establish whether the transactions were fully consistent with Ghana’s public financial management framework.
Parliament should examine whether the expenditure and associated commitments complied with the Public Financial Management Act and other applicable financial controls.
The recently established Value for Money Office under the Ministry of Finance should also be part of the broader conversation about whether adequate value-for-money considerations were applied to major public financial transactions.
The purpose of such scrutiny should not be to find convenient individuals to blame.
It should be to identify weaknesses in the system and recommend reforms that prevent their recurrence.
GoldBod Should Not Become the Scapegoat
There is certainly a legitimate debate to be had about GoldBod’s role in Ghana’s gold trading ecosystem.
However, attempting to place the entire burden of responsibility for the reported GH¢22 billion losses on GoldBod without first establishing the institutional, financial and transactional chain behind those losses risks producing the wrong conclusion.
The facts currently available do not justify turning the issue into a campaign against one institution or individual.
GoldBod’s role, the Bank of Ghana’s role, the Ministry of Finance’s role and the responsibilities of other actors must be clearly separated and independently examined.
Accountability requires following the money, tracing decisions and identifying who authorised what—not simply identifying the most convenient target.
Parliament Must Ask the Hard Questions
This is precisely where Parliament’s oversight function becomes important.
Rather than allowing the debate to degenerate into exchanges of accusations and personal attacks, Parliament should demand a comprehensive account of the programme.
It should establish the amount committed, the source of the funds, the legal authority for the transactions, the counterparties involved, the procurement processes used, the risk-management arrangements and the precise circumstances that produced the reported losses.
If mistakes were made, the public deserves to know who made them and why.
If procedures were breached, the appropriate institutions must act.
If the losses resulted from legitimate market risks rather than wrongdoing, that should also be established transparently.
And if there are systemic weaknesses in Ghana’s approach to commodity trading, those weaknesses must be addressed.
From Blame to Reform
The ultimate objective should go beyond determining who is politically responsible.
Ghana needs stronger systems for managing public participation in commodity markets.
Gold and other commodities can generate significant revenues, but they can also expose the state to considerable market, operational and financial risks.
Government therefore needs a clear policy framework governing public commodity trading, including transparent procurement procedures, independent risk assessment, robust counterparty due diligence, clear reporting requirements and effective parliamentary oversight.
The country should emerge from this controversy with stronger institutions—not deeper political divisions.
Personal attacks may generate headlines, but they will not recover a single cedi of the reported losses.
What Ghana needs now is evidence, accountability and reform.
The GH¢22 billion question is too serious to be reduced to a battle over personalities. The focus must return to the institutions that authorised, financed, executed and supervised the transactions.
Until those questions are answered, efforts to make GoldBod or Sammy Gyamfi the sole face of the controversy risk distracting the nation from the bigger accountability failure that must be examined.
