‘A loss is a loss’ – Prof Atta Peprah rejects GoldBod’s defence of $1.7billion loss

Professor James Atta Peprah, a former Dean of the School of Economics at the University of Cape Coast (UCC), has rejected the explanation that the reported $1.7 billion loss associated with Ghana's Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) should not be treated as a consequential loss.

Prof. Atta Peprah said regardless of how the financial outcome is characterised, losses have economic implications and cannot simply be dismissed.

“Every loss is a loss. Every loss has immediate or short-term consequences and long-term consequences. So there's no way in the world that you can say that this particular loss has no consequential effect,” he said in an interview on Eyewitness News on Wednesday, August 19, 2026.

His comments come after Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, rejected claims that GoldBod incurred $1.7 billion in losses in 2025, describing the allegation as a “barefaced lie.”

Mr Gyamfi, speaking at the Government Accountability Series on Wednesday, August 19, 2026, challenged Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin to identify where in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) report GoldBod was accused of incurring the loss.

According to Mr Gyamfi, the $1.7 billion figure relates to losses incurred by the Bank of Ghana (BoG) under the DGPP and not a loss recorded by GoldBod as an institution.

He said GoldBod's audited financial statements instead showed an operational surplus of GH¢907 million and an overall surplus of more than GH¢5.4 billion.

The IMF has reported that the scaling-up of the DGPP in 2025 resulted in losses of more than $1.7 billion, equivalent to about 1.5% of Ghana's GDP.

Mr Gyamfi has argued that the IMF did not attribute those losses directly to GoldBod, but linked them to the expansion of the programme and factors including discounts on gold sales, fees and foreign-exchange losses.

However, Prof. Atta Peprah argued that the distinction between GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana becomes difficult to sustain because of the financial relationship between the two institutions.

He said BoG's financing of GoldBod's gold-purchasing activities means losses arising from those activities can ultimately have implications for the central bank.

“Why should we blame a BoG loss on GoldBod? They financed it. BoG financed it. They cannot be treated as separate entities,” he said.

Prof. Atta Peprah further argued that the current arrangement creates a situation in which the central bank bears the financial consequences of activities undertaken through GoldBod.

He therefore called for a restructuring of the financing model, proposing that GoldBod should obtain funding from the open money market at commercial rates rather than relying on the Bank of Ghana.

“Ideally, the GoldBod business, from my point of view, should be separated from the government, from the central bank or Bank of Ghana,” he said.

“When you buy gold, you aggregate gold, you offload, you sell. The best approach is to go to the money market, borrow at commercial rates, buy the gold, aggregate and do whatever you want to do with it.”

He maintained that such an arrangement would help insulate the central bank from losses arising from GoldBod's trading activities.

“So I think there should be separation of this business between Gold Board and Bank of Ghana. Gold Board takes your money from the open market, pitches the gold, aggregates it, whatever you want to do with it, and says that BoG doesn't come in,” he said.