Professor Ransford Edward Gyampo, Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Shippers’ Authority, has waded into the heated debate over the Bank of Ghana’s financial performance, arguing that the central bank’s growing losses should be seen not as failure, but as a deliberate investment in economic stability.
In a recent Facebook post, the University of Ghana political scientist urged critics to adopt a long-term perspective when assessing the bank’s expenditure.
“Spending to build a house, for instance, is not a loss; it is an investment,” Gyampo stated. “Similarly, spending to achieve economic stability and reduce inflation from 54% to 3.8% isn’t a loss.
If the outcome of this so-called loss makes Ghanaians happy, so be it.”
His comments come at a time when the Bank of Ghana’s financial statements are under intense public scrutiny.
The central bank reportedly recorded an operating loss of GH¢15.6 billion in 2025, marking its fourth consecutive year of deficits.
This represents a sharp rise from the GH¢9.49 billion loss in 2024, following even steeper losses of GH¢60.8 billion in 2022 and GH¢10.5 billion in 2023.
These losses have largely been driven by the high cost of monetary policy interventions aimed at taming inflation.
Notably, more than GH¢16.7 billion was spent on open market operations to mop up excess liquidity in the economy.
Further strain came from impairment losses linked to the government’s Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP), which significantly weakened the bank’s balance sheet.
By the end of 2023, the Bank of Ghana’s liabilities had exceeded its assets, leaving it with negative equity.
The developments have sharply divided opinion among analysts and policymakers.
Critics view the recurring deficits as a sign of poor financial management, with some going as far as to describe the situation as “criminal mismanagement.”
However, supporters, including Professor Gyampo, insist the central bank’s actions were necessary to safeguard the economy.
They argue that while aggressive monetary tightening comes at a high cost, it remains a critical tool for restoring macroeconomic stability.
Despite these defenses, concerns about the long-term implications persist.
Economists warn that sustained losses could ultimately lead to higher taxes, increased government borrowing, or added pressure on the cedi factors that could erode living standards.
As the debate intensifies, one question continues to dominate public discourse: do the benefits of stabilising the economy justify the scale of losses incurred by the nation’s central bank?
By 1960news.com
