Chief Executive Officer of GoldBod, Sammy Gyamfi, has dismissed claims by the Minority in Parliament that the government is attempting to “equalise” losses recorded under the Gold-for-Reserves programme, describing the allegations as misleading and politically motivated.
In a Facebook post on Monday, Mr Gyamfi opposed calls for a parliamentary probe into an alleged US$214 million loss, arguing that the Minority has ignored significantly higher losses incurred under the previous administration.
“Equalisation? Never. No one is equalising,” he wrote, insisting that available data shows improved outcomes under the current arrangement.
Mr Gyamfi disclosed that in 2024, under the New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration, the Bank of Ghana purchased only 45 tonnes of artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) gold through the Precious Minerals Marketing Company (PMMC), Red Sapphire, and other aggregators. Despite gold prices being below US$2,800 per ounce at the time, he said the Bank of Ghana recorded an audited loss of GH¢4.18 billion under the ASM gold purchase programme.
By contrast, he noted that in 2025 under the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration, the Bank of Ghana has so far purchased 102 tonnes of ASM gold—more than double the previous year—at prices exceeding US$4,400 per ounce. Yet, the reported loss stands at GH¢3.3 billion and remains unaudited.
“The NPP Minority Caucus is now crying foul that the BoG and GoldBod have made a much lesser loss, despite buying a far larger volume of ASM gold at much higher prices,” Mr Gyamfi stated.
He accused the Minority of hypocrisy, adding, “When you remind them of the much bigger losses recorded when they were in power, they say you are equalising. No, we are not equalising at all. We are simply exposing your hypocrisy and deliberate mischief.”
Mr Gyamfi also questioned the criteria being used to assess the programme’s performance, stressing that the Gold-for-Reserves initiative was never designed as a profit-making venture.
“Is the Gold-for-Reserves programme a profit-making programme or a forex-generation programme?” he asked. “The fact is, it is a forex-generation programme and not a profit-making one. You do not assess the success of a non-profit monetary policy initiative based on profit and loss, but rather on its broader economic impact.”
He concluded that the programme should be evaluated based on its contribution to foreign exchange stability and broader macroeconomic outcomes, rather than narrow profit-and-loss figures.
