Chartered Accountant petitions ICAG for independent opinion on disputed US$1.7bn GoldBod 'loss'
A Chartered Accountant, Stephen Donkor, has petitioned the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Ghana (ICAG) to provide an independent professional opinion on the nature of the disputed US$1.7 billion figure at the centre of the controversy surrounding the Bank of Ghana’s (BoG) Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) and the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod).
In a formal petition dated August 24, 2026, Mr Donkor called on the President and Council of ICAG to determine, from a strictly technical and non-partisan standpoint, whether the US$1.7 billion figure represents an accounting loss, programme-level exposure, gross trading flow, valuation movement or a combination of different measures.
He also copied the petition to the Ministry of Finance, Parliament, the Auditor-General, GoldBod, the Bank of Ghana and the Daily Graphic.
Petition follows political dispute
The request comes amid an escalating political dispute over the financial performance and management of the DGPP.
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin recently called for an urgent investigation into the programme, alleging that Ghana had lost US$1.7 billion, equivalent to about GH¢22 billion, under the programme operated by the Bank of Ghana and GoldBod.
He argued that the programme, which was intended to protect the country’s gold reserves, strengthen the cedi and support the economy, had instead resulted in significant losses to the state.
Five Minority MPs have subsequently filed a motion asking the Speaker of Parliament to establish an ad hoc committee to investigate the matter.
GoldBod Chief Executive Officer, Sammy Gyamfi, has rejected the claim that the US$1.7 billion loss should be attributed to GoldBod.
Mr Gyamfi has maintained that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) did not attribute the reported loss to GoldBod and has cited the institution’s audited 2025 financial statements, which he said recorded an operational surplus of GH¢907 million and an overall surplus of more than GH¢5.4 billion.
According to him, the DGPP is a Bank of Ghana programme, with GoldBod serving only as a buying agent.
He has therefore argued that the losses reported by the IMF, estimated at about US$400 million in 2024 and US$1.7 billion in 2025 following the expansion of the programme, should be reflected in the Bank of Ghana’s accounts rather than those of GoldBod.
Mr Afenyo-Markin, however, has argued that the identity of the institution carrying the loss does not change the fact that public funds are involved.
He has also maintained that the GoldBod CEO has not disputed the existence of a loss but has instead challenged which institution should be held responsible for it.
ICAG asked to determine true nature of figure
Mr Donkor's petition does not seek to take sides in the political dispute but asks ICAG to apply recognised accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards to determine the precise nature of the disputed figure.
Among other things, he wants the Institute to establish whether the US$1.7 billion should properly be described as a loss and, if so, what type of loss it represents and which entity should bear it.
He is also asking ICAG to determine what portion, if any, can properly be attributed to GoldBod, the Bank of Ghana or the government.
The petition further seeks clarity on the extent to which trading losses, off-taker fees, foreign exchange movements, valuation changes and financing costs may have contributed to the figure.
Mr Donkor is also asking the professional body to establish whether cash losses, unrealised losses and quasi-fiscal losses have been combined in the public debate and to identify the audit evidence required to substantiate or disprove the US$1.7 billion claim.
He wants ICAG to review the audited financial statements of GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana, relevant transaction records, pricing methodologies, off-taker arrangements and financial reconciliations.
He has also proposed that the Institute prepare a detailed reconciliation showing how any aggregate figure was calculated, with each component clearly classified as a realised loss, unrealised loss, valuation effect, fee or another applicable category.
IMF figures also questioned
The petition further draws attention to the IMF's reporting on the programme, arguing that the Fund's figures do not straightforwardly establish a US$1.7 billion loss attributable solely to GoldBod.
According to the petition, the IMF's Fifth Review reported a US$214 million quasi-fiscal loss associated with the 2025 year-to-date artisanal and small-scale gold component of the Gold-for-Reserves operation through September 2025.
It also cited a separate US$128 million loss from a discontinued Gold-for-Oil component in 2024 and noted the IMF's call for improved transparency and for such losses to be reflected on the government's balance sheet.
Call for independent technical assessment
Mr Donkor said an independent technical assessment by ICAG could provide a common professional basis for the ongoing parliamentary and public debate.
He argued that such an assessment would help prevent materially different financial figures and accounting concepts from being used interchangeably when discussing the performance of the gold purchase programme.
The petitioner stressed that he was not asking ICAG to defend or condemn any individual or institution.
Instead, he wants the Institute to state clearly whether the available evidence supports the US$1.7 billion claim, identify the precise nature of the figure and, where the evidence is insufficient, specify the information required to reach a definitive conclusion.