The Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, has come under intense public and political scrutiny following revelation
The Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, has come under intense public and political scrutiny following revelations surrounding a reported $214 million loss linked to the gold trading operations under the Gold-for-Reserves programme.
What began as a response to an IMF disclosure has now evolved into a broader national debate over transparency, accounting integrity, and the true financial position of the gold sector.
At the centre of the controversy is the allegation that GoldBod, under Sammy Gyamfi’s leadership, has relied on what critics describe as “creative accounting” to present an image of profitability while masking substantial losses incurred through state-led gold trading activities. The dispute has since drawn in economists, opposition figures, and policy analysts, with growing calls for clarity and accountability.
Conflicting Narratives Over GoldBod’s Financial Health
The matter gained public attention after the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported that Ghana recorded a loss of approximately $214 million from its gold trading operations. This disclosure contradicted public statements by the GoldBod CEO, who had earlier claimed that the institution was operating profitably and had generated more than $10 billion in foreign exchange for the country in 2025 alone.
In defending GoldBod, Sammy Gyamfi argued that unaudited financial statements showed the institution had posted a surplus, insisting that claims of losses were misleading.
He maintained that revenues from gold purchases, export operations, and service fees demonstrated the success of the initiative, which he described as a cornerstone of the economic recovery.
However, the opposition New Patriotic Party members argue that this defence collapses under scrutiny because it conflates two fundamentally different financial roles performed by GoldBod — regulatory oversight and commercial gold trading — which, under accepted public finance principles, must be accounted for separately.
The Core of the Controversy: Two Roles, One Ledger
GoldBod operates in two distinct capacities. First, it functions as a regulator and service provider, earning income from assay fees, licensing charges, and commissions from gold and diamond exports. These revenues are largely predictable, low-risk, and designed to cover administrative and oversight costs.
Second, GoldBod plays an economic role as a participant in state gold trading, purchasing gold locally and exporting it to support Ghana’s foreign exchange reserves.
This second function involves significant financial risk and is funded largely by public resources.
According to critics, the controversy arises because revenues from the first function — regulatory and service fees — are allegedly being used to offset losses incurred from the second, more volatile activity. Under public sector and quasi-fiscal accounting standards, such an approach is considered improper, as it obscures the true performance of state trading operations and transfers risk to taxpayers without transparent disclosure.
The IMF Figure And The Disputed Loss
The IMF’s reported $214 million loss relates specifically to Ghana’s gold trading operations, not to GoldBod’s regulatory income.
The opposition members argue that this distinction is critical. While GoldBod may indeed have generated significant income from assay and licensing fees, these revenues cannot negate or “cancel out” losses recorded from gold purchases and exports conducted on behalf of the state.
In essence, critics contend that the question is not whether GoldBod made money in some areas, but whether the gold trading programme itself was profitable.
On that question, they argue, the IMF’s assessment remains damning.
The Dispute Over Foreign Reserves
The controversy deepened when Sammy Gyamfi stated publicly that the foreign reserves had increased from $9 billion in 2016 to over $12 billion in 2025, attributing this growth largely to GoldBod’s operations.
A subsequent fact-check by JoyNews challenged this claim, citing Bank of Ghana data showing that reserves stood at approximately $4.86 billion in 2016, not $9 billion.
In response, Sammy Gyamfi clarified that the reference to 2016 was a typographical error and that he had intended to compare 2024 figures with those of 2025.
He accused critics of seizing on the mistake to undermine the broader success of the GoldBod initiative.
Nonetheless, the opposition maintains that even with the correction, the core issue remains unresolved: whether GoldBod’s reported gains genuinely reflect operational efficiency or are the result of accounting practices that blend unrelated revenue streams.
Growing Calls For Transparency
The opposition members are calling for the publication of fully audited financial statements that clearly separate GoldBod’s regulatory income from its trading activities.
They argue that only a transparent, independently audited account can determine whether Ghana truly benefited from the gold trading programme or whether the state absorbed hidden losses.
COMMENTS