Story By: Alexander Kukah
The escalating debate between Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin and the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) has raised an important question: Is the Minority Leader presenting the facts accurately, or is he deliberately blurring two different financial issues for political effect?
The question deserves careful examination because the figures being discussed relate to different institutions and different aspects of Ghana’s domestic gold purchasing programme.
Mr Afenyo-Markin has maintained that GoldBod is responsible for an alleged US$1.7 billion, or approximately GH¢22 billion, loss associated with the domestic gold purchase programme. He has insisted that the Minority will continue demanding answers from GoldBod and has described the matter as a financial loss to the state.
However, GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi has strongly rejected that characterisation. He says GoldBod’s own audited financial statements for 2025 recorded an operational surplus of about GH¢907 million and an overall surplus of about GH¢5.4 billion. The Auditor-General’s audit, according to Mr Gyamfi, found no adverse findings against GoldBod in relation to the alleged loss.
This is where the public debate needs greater precision.
The US$1.7 billion figure being cited relates to losses associated with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, according to the current reporting on the dispute. GoldBod argues that this should not automatically be described as a loss incurred by GoldBod itself. Mr Gyamfi has challenged Mr Afenyo-Markin to identify where the IMF directly attributed the loss to GoldBod.
There is, however, another side to the argument. Mr Afenyo-Markin’s position appears to be that looking only at GoldBod’s audited accounts does not tell the entire story because some transaction-related costs and losses were absorbed elsewhere, particularly by the Bank of Ghana. That is a legitimate issue for public scrutiny if supported by the underlying financial and programme documents.
Therefore, calling Mr Afenyo-Markin “deceitful” would require evidence of intentional misrepresentation, not merely evidence that his interpretation differs from GoldBod’s.
What can reasonably be questioned is whether repeatedly describing the US$1.7 billion figure as a “GoldBod loss” gives the public the impression that GoldBod’s audited accounts recorded a US$1.7 billion deficit. Based on the figures publicly presented by GoldBod and reported from its audited accounts, that impression would be misleading: the institution’s reported 2025 accounts show surpluses, not a US$1.7 billion loss.
At the same time, GoldBod should not use its reported surplus as a shield against legitimate questions about the wider domestic gold purchasing programme. GoldBod’s own explanation acknowledges that its GH¢5.4 billion overall surplus includes approximately GH¢4.5 billion in government-provided revolving seed capital. GoldBod has also stated that excluding that government injection, it would still have recorded an operational surplus of roughly GH¢896 million.
That distinction is crucial.
The real question for Parliament and the Ghanaian taxpayer should therefore not simply be “Did GoldBod make GH¢22 billion in losses?” The more useful questions are: Where exactly did the US$1.7 billion loss arise? Which institution legally and financially bore it? What transactions generated the loss? What role did GoldBod play in those transactions? What costs were borne by the Bank of Ghana? And what does the IMF report actually attribute to GoldBod?
Those questions can be answered with documents rather than political rhetoric.
Mr Afenyo-Markin is entitled, as Minority Leader, to scrutinise the government’s management of public resources. GoldBod, equally, has an obligation to provide transparent evidence supporting its financial claims.
But political accountability loses value when different accounting concepts are presented as though they are the same thing.
Until the underlying IMF, Bank of Ghana and GoldBod documents are placed side by side and independently examined, it would be premature to label Afenyo-Markin personally “deceitful.” What can be fairly challenged is whether his description of the US$1.7 billion figure accurately reflects what GoldBod’s own audited accounts and the available evidence actually say.
For Ghana’s democracy and public finances, the facts—not partisan narratives—should settle the GoldBod saga.
Story By: Alexander Kukah