A heated political debate has erupted between Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) CEO Sammy Gyamfi and Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin over a reported GH¢22 billion (about US$1.7 billion) loss associated with Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP).
What began as a disagreement over figures has now developed into a wider debate about accountability, the relationship between GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana, and the language politicians use when discussing possible future prosecutions.
“Onerous Bail Terms in Your Brain”
The controversy took a dramatic turn after Afenyo-Markin warned that officials of GoldBod could face “scary” bail conditions if the New Patriotic Party (NPP) returned to power.
Sammy Gyamfi rejected the warning and said he regarded it as little more than “comic relief.” He responded with the striking remark that he would have “onerous bail terms in [Afenyo-Markin’s] brain.”
Gyamfi maintained that he was not intimidated by suggestions of future imprisonment or prosecution.
But behind the political exchanges lies a serious financial question.
What Is the GH¢22 Billion Dispute About?
The Minority says approximately GH¢22 billion was lost under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025 and is demanding a detailed explanation of how the programme was operated.
Afenyo-Markin argues that GoldBod played an important role in purchasing, aggregating, assaying and exporting gold, while the Bank of Ghana provided financing. He therefore wants greater clarity about where the financial losses arose and how the risks and benefits were shared.
Among the questions raised by the Minority are the prices at which gold was purchased, how those prices were determined, how off-takers were selected, the discounts applied during sales and the fees GoldBod received.
The Minority’s argument is essentially that even if the loss appears in the Bank of Ghana’s accounts, Ghanaians still deserve to understand the entire transaction and who ultimately carried the financial risk.
Sammy Gyamfi Rejects the Claim
Sammy Gyamfi strongly disputes the suggestion that GoldBod itself lost US$1.7 billion.
He has described that claim as a “barefaced lie” and challenged his critics to provide evidence showing that the reported loss was actually recorded by GoldBod.
His defence draws an important distinction between GoldBod’s own financial performance and costs or losses recorded under the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.
That distinction has become central to the entire controversy.
The Institute of Fiscal Policy Governance (IFPG) has also challenged the claim that GoldBod recorded a GH¢22 billion loss, saying instead that GoldBod recorded a GH¢5.44 billion surplus.
The Minority, however, remains unconvinced and says the government must still account for the GH¢22 billion associated with the broader programme.
So Who Is Responsible?
This is where the debate becomes more complicated than the political headlines suggest.
There appears to be disagreement not only about the figures but also about which institution should bear responsibility for the financial cost of the programme.
University of Ghana economist Dr Adu Owusu Sarkodie has suggested that GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana should share the financial cost associated with the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, adding another perspective to the debate.
This means the public discussion should go beyond the simple question, “Did GoldBod lose GH¢22 billion?”
The more important questions are:
- What exactly constitutes the reported GH¢22 billion?
- Which institution’s accounts recorded it?
- What transactions produced the cost or loss?
- What role did the Bank of Ghana play?
- What role did GoldBod play?
- Who received the benefits from the transactions and who carried the risks?
Until these questions are answered with audited figures and clear documentation, political statements alone are unlikely to settle the controversy.
Accountability Should Not Become Political Revenge
There is also another important issue arising from this confrontation.
Ghana must be careful about creating the impression that imprisonment, prosecution or harsh bail conditions are automatic consequences of a change of government.
Public officials must certainly account for the resources entrusted to them. If evidence establishes wrongdoing, the appropriate institutions should investigate and prosecute those responsible.
But prosecution should be based on evidence and law, not political threats.
Likewise, bail conditions are matters for the courts and should not become political weapons used to frighten opponents.
Ghana’s democracy becomes stronger when accountability is separated from political revenge.
Moment of Wisdom Perspective: Give Ghanaians the Figures
At Moment of Wisdom GH, we believe the most productive way forward is transparency.
Sammy Gyamfi and GoldBod should continue providing detailed figures explaining their operations and financial performance.
Afenyo-Markin and the Minority should equally present the evidence supporting their claims and subject those figures to rigorous scrutiny.
Ghanaians do not benefit when such an important economic discussion becomes dominated by insults, threats and political point-scoring.
Gold is one of Ghana’s most valuable natural resources. How it is purchased, financed, sold and exported directly affects the country’s foreign exchange position and ultimately the Ghanaian economy.
The central question therefore should not be who wins the political argument.
It should be:
Did Ghana get value for its gold, and can every cedi involved in the programme be properly accounted for?
That is the answer Ghanaians deserve.
Moment of Wisdom; Time for Wisdom.
