Africa Policy Lens (APL) is demanding full public disclosure following confirmation by the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) that it has terminated a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Goldstream Global DMCC linked to a proposed US$1 billion investment to develop more than 300 responsible mines in Ghana.
The termination was disclosed in GoldBod’s response, dated August 26, 2026, to a Right to Information (RTI) request submitted on August 11, 2026, by Ing. Wisdom Edem Gomashie, a mining consultant and Senior Fellow of Africa Policy Lens.
The disclosure raises questions about the due diligence conducted before the agreement was signed, the obligations the company failed to fulfil and whether the proposed initiative resulted in any financial or operational commitments by GoldBod or other public institutions.
Goldstream agreement terminated after non-performance
GoldBod signed the MoU with Goldstream Global DMCC on August 22, 2025. The proposed initiative was subsequently announced by GoldBod Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi at the Mining and Minerals Convention in Accra on September 9, 2025.
The announcement attracted public interest because of the proposed US$1 billion investment and its stated ambition to support the development of more than 300 responsible mines in Ghana.
However, in its response to APL’s RTI inquiry, GoldBod confirmed that the arrangement had been terminated.
“The Memorandum of Understanding entered into between GoldBod and Goldstream Global DMCC has been terminated. The termination followed the company’s failure to perform its obligations under the MoU,” the response stated.
GoldBod also indicated that the terminated MoU should not be regarded as an ongoing commercial arrangement or as creating any current financial or operational obligations for the institution.
While the termination establishes that the proposed arrangement is no longer in effect, questions remain about how the agreement was assessed, monitored and ultimately discontinued.
APL argues that a project publicly associated with an investment ambition of US$1 billion warrants a clear account of what happened between its announcement and termination.
Key questions remain unanswered
According to APL, GoldBod’s response does not specify which obligations Goldstream Global DMCC failed to fulfil, when the termination took effect or what procedures were followed before the agreement was brought to an end.
The response also leaves unresolved whether the proposed investment advanced beyond the MoU stage, whether funds were committed or disbursed, and whether GoldBod or any other public institution incurred preparatory costs.
APL says these questions are important given the scale of the proposed initiative and the strategic significance of Ghana’s gold and other mineral resources.
The organisation is calling on GoldBod to explain the financial, technical and operational due diligence undertaken before the MoU was signed. It also wants the institution to disclose what evidence was available to demonstrate Goldstream Global DMCC’s capacity to mobilise the proposed investment.
Further clarification is being sought on the specific obligations the company failed to meet and the steps GoldBod took to address any non-performance before terminating the agreement.
APL is also asking whether GoldBod or other public institutions incurred expenditure, issued financial guarantees, made mineralised areas available or shared geological information in anticipation of the proposed project.
Where any commitments were made, the organisation wants their nature and value disclosed, alongside details of the measures taken to protect the State’s interests following the termination.
Another issue concerns the commercial structure of the proposed arrangement. APL is seeking clarification on whether the MoU contemplated gold offtake rights or other commercial benefits for Goldstream Global DMCC, and what safeguards were envisaged to ensure Ghana received fair value.
No current obligations, but what happened before termination?
GoldBod’s assurance that the terminated MoU creates no current financial or operational obligations is a relevant part of the disclosure. However, APL maintains that it does not, on its own, answer questions about any historical expenditure, commitments or activities undertaken while the arrangement was in effect.
The distinction is significant: the absence of current obligations does not necessarily establish whether public resources were used or whether commitments were made before termination.
APL is therefore calling for a documented account of the agreement’s implementation history, including whether any funds changed hands, whether public resources were deployed and whether any financial exposure arose before the MoU was discontinued.
The organisation has not presented the termination itself as evidence of wrongdoing. Rather, it says the circumstances surrounding the agreement and its subsequent failure to proceed should be explained through verifiable records.
Transparency and accountability in Ghana’s gold sector
APL acknowledges that commercial agreements can fail for legitimate reasons and that terminating an arrangement following non-performance may be an appropriate institutional response.
Nevertheless, the organisation argues that major investment initiatives involving public institutions should be subject to transparency throughout their lifecycle, from initial assessment and approval to implementation, monitoring and termination.
The Goldstream case, it says, highlights broader questions about how public institutions evaluate prospective investors, verify their financial and technical capacity, oversee strategic commercial arrangements and communicate material developments to the public.
For APL, accountability should not end when an agreement is terminated. The public should be able to establish what was proposed, what was achieved, what obligations remained unfulfilled and whether the process had any financial implications for the State.
APL calls for publication of MoU and related records
Africa Policy Lens is calling on GoldBod to publish a comprehensive account of the circumstances surrounding the termination of its MoU with Goldstream Global DMCC.
Specifically, APL is seeking:
- Due diligence disclosures: Details of the financial, technical and operational assessments undertaken before the agreement was signed.
- Performance records: Identification of the obligations that were not fulfilled and an explanation of how GoldBod monitored compliance.
- Termination documentation: The effective date of termination, the procedures followed and the relevant notices or correspondence.
- Financial accountability: Disclosure of any expenditure, commitments, guarantees or other financial exposure associated with the proposed initiative.
- Commercial terms: Clarification of whether the arrangement contemplated gold offtake rights or other commercial benefits, subject to applicable disclosure requirements.
- Publication of relevant documents: Release of the executed MoU, termination notices, related agreements and associated records, subject to applicable legal exemptions.
APL is also urging the development of stronger institutional standards for major commercial agreements involving public institutions. Such standards, it says, should provide for appropriate investor due diligence, clear performance benchmarks, effective monitoring and timely public disclosure of significant changes in an agreement’s status.
Public accountability beyond investment announcements
The proposed Goldstream initiative was announced with an investment ambition of US$1 billion and an objective of developing more than 300 responsible mines. Its termination makes it important to distinguish between the scale of the original announcement and the investment, if any, that was ultimately realised.
APL maintains that Ghana’s mineral resources must be managed through verifiable commitments, rigorous institutional oversight and transparent reporting rather than investment announcements alone.
The organisation says a full account of the Goldstream arrangement would help the public understand how the proposal was evaluated, why it failed to proceed and whether any financial or operational consequences arose before its termination.
The call for disclosure, APL emphasises, is intended to support institutional accountability and improve governance standards in Ghana’s gold sector.
