The minority’s noise over BoG and GoldBod: A distraction Ghanaians must see through

The Minority caucus’ recent call for investigations and possible prosecution over an alleged US$214 million loss involving the Bank of Ghana and the Chief Executive Officer of GoldBod must be examined with facts, context, and honesty. What is being presented as accountability is instead a calculated attempt to politicize complex economic reforms and mislead the Ghanaian public.

What the Minority describes as a loss is not evidence of missing funds, theft, or criminal conduct. The figure in question relates to policy exposure and accounting positions arising from structured gold-backed transactions implemented during a period of economic stress. These were institutional policy decisions executed within state frameworks, not private dealings for personal benefit. Rather than explaining this reality, the Minority has chosen sensationalism.

Before accusing others, the Minority owes Ghanaians answers about its own record. What exactly came out of their Gold-for-Reserves programme when they were in office? How much verifiable physical gold was added to Ghana’s reserves under their watch? What measurable foreign exchange stability did it deliver beyond public announcements? Where are the independently audited reports proving its effectiveness?

The same questions apply to the Gold-for-Oil programme. How many barrels of oil were sustainably secured? Did fuel prices stabilize structurally or only briefly for political optics? Why did prices continue to rise despite the programme? Who were the counterparties and why was the Ghanaian public never presented with a full parliamentary report detailing volumes, pricing, and settlements?

Beyond these programmes lies the broader issue of economic management. Was it the current Governor of the Bank of Ghana, Dr. Ernest Addison, or the Chief Executive Officer of GoldBod, Sammy Gyamfi, who presided over the worst cedi depreciation in Ghana’s history? Was it under their leadership that inflation soared to unprecedented levels? Were they responsible for reckless borrowing that forced the country into an IMF programme? Or is the reality that these public servants are now being targeted because the economy is showing signs of stabilization?

The timing of this outrage raises further questions. Is the Minority attempting to damage the reputation of Dr. Ernest Addison and Sammy Gyamfi simply because the improving economic narrative, including currency stability and restored confidence, is increasingly associated with their work? Where was this energy when inflation exceeded fifty percent and the cedi was collapsing? Why were calls for prosecution absent when the economy was under severe strain?

A further issue exposes the weakness of the Minority’s argument. They are relying heavily on an IMF report even though the fiscal financial year has not yet ended. How does one declare losses or mismanagement when final accounts are still open and subject to reconciliation and audit? On what accounting basis are conclusions being drawn when the books have not been closed? Are they wise enough to read between the lines of IMF reports or do they treat every observation as a final verdict? Do they understand that the IMF has historically been uncomfortable with countries asserting firm control over their natural resources and reserve management? Should anyone be surprised when an IMF report expresses caution about a state taking greater command of its gold and financial sovereignty?

Even more importantly, since the NDC administration resumed office, has Ghana borrowed any new money from the IMF or any international financial institution? Has the government resorted to local bond market borrowing to finance operations? If the answer is no, then how is the country financing its obligations? Does this not demonstrate improved fiscal discipline, better resource mobilization, and more efficient management of domestic revenues? Why is this reality absent from the Minority’s narrative? How can an economy that avoids both international borrowing and domestic bond issuance still be painted as mismanaged?

If IMF reports are now the standard, why were similar reports ignored in the past when they highlighted excessive borrowing, rising debt, and fiscal indiscipline? Why were no calls for prosecution made at that time? Are IMF cautionary remarks now to be treated as evidence of criminality? Since when did policy disagreement or institutional caution become proof of wrongdoing? Why should Ghanaian institutions be discredited simply because their policies reduce dependence on external lenders?

It is also important to understand the true role of GoldBod. GoldBod is a reform institution, not a conventional profit-making entity. Its mandate is to sanitize the gold trade, reduce smuggling, improve foreign exchange inflows, and strengthen macroeconomic stability. Its operations involve advance purchases, hedging risks, price fluctuations, and settlement delays that are common in commodity-backed systems globally. Any fair assessment must therefore consider reductions in gold smuggling, improvements in local retention, and gains in foreign exchange inflows rather than selectively isolating figures.

And yet, one must wonder how the Minority can be so concerned with these calculations and their endless critical observations of the economy while turning a blind eye to the real culprits of past economic mismanagement. Are they seriously suggesting that they care about macroeconomic discipline now, when they left the former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta unchecked? Or when Dr. Bawumia, then Vice President and chairman of the Economic Management Team, who was nicknamed the Walewale Adams Smith due to his incessant economic lectures across all the tertiary institutions in the country, was allowed to drag the country into debt-driven chaos along with his team?

Is it not curious that they can suddenly recite IMF cautionary notes, compute imaginary losses, and highlight policy exposures, yet at the same time ignore years of reckless borrowing, ballooning deficits, and unchecked public spending that pushed the country to the edge? Are they wise enough to realize that their selective outrage only exposes political opportunism, not genuine concern for Ghana’s economy? Do they think Ghanaians have forgotten the runaway debts, the fiscal indiscipline, and the economic mismanagement under their watch? How convenient it must be to suddenly act as if they were the guardians of prudence while the very architects of past crises went unchallenged. Can they explain why the country is now running smoothly, meeting obligations, and stabilizing the cedi without resorting to IMF borrowing or domestic bond issuance, yet they continue to manufacture scandal against Dr. Ernest Addison and Sammy Gyamfi, who are correcting the mistakes they once ignored?

The Minority must be firmly cautioned about the consequences of this approach. Such conduct undermines confidence in state institutions, discourages investment, weakens Ghana’s international credibility, and politicizes reforms that require stability and patience. Accountability is necessary, but it must be evidence-based and responsible. If wrongdoing is proven through proper audits, the law must take its course. However, if reforms are being criminalized because they are beginning to yield results, then this episode will be remembered not as patriotism but as reckless politics that endangers national progress. Ghanaians deserve the truth, not selective outrage or political theatrics.

Author: Curtice Dumevor public health expert and social commentator

Email: curticedumevor25@gmail.com

   Comments0