The Minority Leader in Parliament, Osehen Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin, has accused the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) of taking credit for positive economic developments linked to the scaling-up of the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) while distancing itself from the programme’s losses.
He cited the 41% appreciation of the cedi, an increase in reserves from US$8.9 billion to US$13 billion, and a decline in inflation as outcomes GoldBod had publicly associated with the programme.
“An institution that claims authorship of the benefits cannot describe itself as a passive agent when the costs are counted,” Osahen Afenyo-Markin emphasised.
He rejected the response by GoldBod Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Sammy Gyamfi, to concerns over gold trading losses under the DGPP, insisting that the board’s own figures raise further questions about the programme’s financial performance.
He noted that GoldBod’s response to an earlier news conference by the Minority Caucus on huge gold trading losses actually “confirms more than it rebuts,” as the group called on the Speaker of Parliament to set up an ad hoc committee of Parliament to probe into the circumstances that led to the financial loss to the state.
The Minority Leader, in two separate statements issued on Wednesday, August 18, and Thursday, August 20, 2026, argued that the Chief Executive of GoldBod did not dispute the International Monetary Fund’s reported finding of a US$1.7 billion, equivalent to about GH¢22 billion, loss under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025.
He noted that the only disagreement was about who should bear responsibility for the loss.
“This is public money, whichever State balance sheet it sits on,” he stated.
Minority questions GoldBod’s GH¢907m surplus
Osahen Afenyo-Markin also questioned GoldBod’s reported operational surplus of GH¢907 million, arguing that the figure should be considered alongside the fees earned from the programme.
He said the GoldBod Chief Executive had disclosed that the institution accounted for about GH¢133 billion in advances in 2025 and received an assay fee of 0.258% and a service fee of 0.5%.
Based on those figures, the Minority Leader estimated that GoldBod earned about GH¢1 billion in fees from the programme.
Osahen Afenyo-Markin therefore argued that the reported operational surplus was smaller than the fee income generated from a programme that, according to the IMF report cited by the Minority, incurred a GH¢22 billion loss.
“The GH¢5.44 billion ‘surplus’ is misleading. The accounts show GH¢970.77 million in non-tax revenue, GH¢35.34 million in finance income, and GH¢4.5477 billion in grants against a GH¢109.59 million expenditure.
“About 84 per cent of the surplus came from a government grant, not operations. Mr Gyamfi called it ‘revolving seed capital’ and government ‘equity,’ yet his signed accounts classify it as grant revenue. Equity is capital; grant revenue is a transfer. It cannot be both. If equity, calling it revenue is wrong. If a grant, it remains taxpayers’ money, not GoldBod profit,” Osahen Afenyo-Markin pointed out.
He observed that “Note 15” of the audited report recorded GH¢337.43 million in assay fees and GH¢558.14 million in Bank of Ghana service charges, for a combined GH¢895.57 million.
“Excluding the grant, non-tax revenue plus finance income less expenditure yields GH¢896.52 million. Thus all but GH¢0.95 million of the operational surplus is matched by those fee lines. This does not make every fee unlawful; it disproves the claim that the surplus demonstrates programme profitability or institutional innocence. Income to the agent is cost to the principal. GoldBod’s surplus came overwhelmingly from charges, while the public programme that carried them lost billions.
“The plain implication of his own numbers is that the operational surplus he is celebrating is smaller than the fee income he collected from a programme that lost the state 22 billion Ghana cedis,” he reiterated.
The Minority Leader maintained that removing the agency fees would leave GoldBod with no operational surplus to celebrate.
Insults after demand for accountability
Osahen Afenyo-Markin maintained that the GH¢22 billion loss reported by the IMF’s Sixth Country Report constitutes a financial loss to the Republic and must therefore be accounted for.
He also criticised the tone of the GoldBod Chief Executive’s response, particularly a reference to a brothel.
The Minority Leader said such language was inappropriate for a public official responding to concerns over the management of public funds.
“Ghanaians asked for figures. They were given insults. The figures are still outstanding,” he stated.
Minority seeks parliamentary probe
Meanwhile, the Minority has called for the formation of an Ad-Hoc committee of Parliament to probe into the operations of the DGPP following the reported US$1.7 billion loss in 2025.
In a Notice of Motion under Order 127, five NPP lawmakers, Ofoase-Ayirebi MP and Ranking Member on Economy and Development Committee Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, Manso Nkwanta MP Tweneboa Fokuo, Weija-Gbawe and Second Deputy Miinority Whip Jerry Ahmed Shaib, Old Tafo MP Vincent Assafuah and Offinso North MP Dr Fred Kyei Asamoah have invoked the appropriate constitutional and parliamentary provisions for the probe.
They prayed that, pursuant to Article 103 of the 1992 Constitution and Standing Orders 204, 212, 213, 262 and 263, Parliament is moved to establish an Ad-Hoc Committee to investigate the Gold-for-Reserves Scheme, including its design, implementation, governance, financial performance, environmental and public health implications, and any related matters. “That the purpose of the said Ad-Hoc Committee shall be to inquire into, inter alia, the reported foreign exchange losses sustained by the Bank of Ghana in connection with the scheme, the roles of relevant State institutions, the integrity of supply chain due diligence and traceability systems, the risk of acquisition of illegally sourced gold, and issues of accountability arising therefrom.
“That accompanying this Notice of Motion is the Substantive Motion, setting out the composition, powers, terms of reference, reporting timelines, interim measures, and implementation framework of the proposed Ad-Hoc Committee,” the lawmakers further prayed.
