The Minority in Parliament has renewed its demand for accountability over reported losses under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP), insisting that the GH¢22 billion loss identified by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) represents a financial loss to the Republic and must be fully accounted for.
The Minority’s position follows a response by the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) to concerns raised by the caucus over the financial and operational performance of the state-owned gold trading institution.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, August 19, 2026, and signed by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the caucus said the GoldBod Chief Executive’s response at the Government Accountability Series had failed to adequately address the central issues raised by the Minority.
According to the caucus, the GoldBod statement “confirms more than it rebuts” regarding the reported financial losses.
The Minority argued that the GoldBod Chief Executive did not dispute the IMF’s reported finding of a US$1.7 billion, equivalent to about GH¢22 billion, loss associated with the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025.
Instead, the caucus said, the Chief Executive had focused on disputing responsibility for the loss.
“The loss is admitted,” the Minority stated, arguing that regardless of which government institution’s balance sheet ultimately carries the loss, the money involved remains public funds.
The caucus therefore maintained that the issue was not merely about institutional responsibility but about how the reported loss occurred and how public resources were managed.
“The GH¢22 billion losses as reported by the IMF Sixth Country Report, numbered 26/213 issued in August 2026, amount to a financial loss to the Republic. It must be accounted for!” Mr Afenyo-Markin said.
The Minority also challenged GoldBod’s explanation of its operational surplus, relying on figures presented by the Chief Executive himself.
According to the caucus, GoldBod disclosed that it accounted for approximately GH¢133 billion in advances under the programme in 2025.
The institution, the Minority noted, also indicated that it received an assay fee of 0.258 percent and a service fee of 0.5 percent on the transactions.
Based on those figures, the caucus estimates that GoldBod earned approximately GH¢1 billion in fees from the programme.
The Minority subsequently questioned the significance of GoldBod’s reported GH¢907 million operational surplus.
It argued that the operational surplus was smaller than the fee income generated from a programme which, according to the IMF finding cited by the caucus, resulted in a GH¢22 billion loss to the state.
“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 GH¢22 billion,” the statement said.
The caucus argued that once agency fees are excluded, GoldBod’s reported operational surplus would effectively disappear.
It therefore demanded a clearer explanation of how GoldBod arrived at its financial performance figures and how its reported surplus should be assessed in the context of the wider financial outcome of the DGPP.
The Minority further challenged what it described as an inconsistency in GoldBod’s position on the programme’s successes and failures.
According to the caucus, GoldBod has previously taken credit for a number of macroeconomic gains, including the appreciation of the cedi, increased foreign exchange reserves and a reduction in inflation.
The Minority said GoldBod’s statement attributed the scaling-up of the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme to the 41 percent appreciation of the cedi, an increase in reserves from US$8.9 billion to US$13 billion, and the decline in inflation.
The caucus argued that an institution that takes public credit for the programme’s benefits should also accept responsibility for examining and accounting for the costs associated with it.
“An institution that claims authorship of the benefits cannot describe itself as a passive agent when the costs are counted,” the Minority said.
The caucus also raised concerns over what it described as shifting funding arrangements surrounding the Gold-for-Reserves-related programme.
According to the Minority, the GoldBod Chief Executive indicated that responsibility for the implementation cost of the Ghana Alternative Reserves Accumulation Programme (GANRAP) moved from the Bank of Ghana to the Ministry of Finance in July 2026.
The caucus further said that GoldBod was seeking to raise funds independently from August 2026.
The Minority questioned whether the changes represented a stable and clearly defined funding model.
“Three funding arrangements in six months is not a settled model,” the statement said.
The caucus said the shifting arrangements required closer scrutiny, particularly given the scale of public resources involved in the gold and reserves programmes.
Beyond the financial issues, the Minority Leader criticised what he described as the tone adopted by the GoldBod Chief Executive in responding to the caucus’s concerns.
Mr Afenyo-Markin took particular exception to a reference to a “brothel” contained in the Chief Executive’s remarks.
He argued that such language was inappropriate in a public statement by an official responsible for accounting for public funds.
“A word on tone. The Chief Executive’s reference to a brothel does not belong in a statement issued by a Public Officer accounting for public funds,” the Minority Leader said.
According to him, the Minority’s demand was for financial figures and explanations rather than political or personal exchanges.
“Ghanaians asked for figures. They were given insults. The figures are still outstanding,” he added.
The Minority has consequently maintained its call for detailed explanations on the reported GH¢22 billion loss, the fees earned by GoldBod, the institution’s reported operational surplus and the funding arrangements underpinning the country’s gold-for-reserves initiatives.
The latest exchange is expected to intensify parliamentary scrutiny of GoldBod and the financial performance of the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, with the Minority insisting that the reported loss must be accounted for regardless of the institutional arrangement through which it was incurred.
By 1960news.com
