Chief Executive Officer of Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi has emphasized that the board’s participation in purchasing and aggregating gold for the Bank of Ghana under the domestic gold purchase program in 2025 was strictly a continuation of the inherited role of the defunct Precious Minerals Marketing Company (PMMC) under the gold purchase agreement signed with the central bank in September 2021.
The GoldBod head emphasized during a press briefing in the Government Accountability Series that accounting losses incurred by the Bank of Ghana under the program were driven by valuation effects rather than fees paid to the board for agreed services rendered.
He noted that survey data suggests Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining (ASM) prices are among the highest in the region, explaining that these accounting losses partly reflect valuation effects rather than actual economic cost.
Sammy Gyamfi rejected assertions attributing the central bank’s $1.7 billion loss to GoldBod, stressing that fees paid to an agent by a principal based on a contract cannot reasonably be cited as the cause of the principal’s losses, and argued that the IMF mischaracterized these service fees as a component of the central bank’s 2025 losses.
“Now, ladies and gentlemen, the gold board’s role under the domestic gold purchase program in 2025 was simply a continuation of the inherited role of the defunct PMMC under the gold purchase agreement with the Bank of Ghana signed in September 2021.”
Sammy Gyamfi
Accounting Mischaracterization and Contractual Obligations
Addressing the broader financial discourse, Gyamfi provided a comprehensive breakdown of the central bank’s domestic gold purchase program to dismantle what he termed a misinterpretation of International Monetary Fund findings.
He pointed out that attributing a massive $1.7 billion loss directly to GoldBod represents a total misrepresentation of official documentation. In his analysis, Gyamfi underscored that fee payments made to an agent under an active service contract represent standard operational remuneration for agreed tasks.
He argued forcefully that such routine contractual payments cannot be logically converted into the primary cause of broader institutional balance sheet deficits.
Sammy Gyamfi further clarified that the International Monetary Fund’s analytical observations focused on regional price dynamics and accounting adjustments. Survey data across the West African sub-region reveals that Ghanaian ASM purchase prices sit at the higher end of the spectrum, which inherently influences mark-to-market calculations.
Therefore, the reported accounting losses reflect valuation adjustments resulting from fluctuations in international market prices and exchange rates rather than concrete economic costs generated by administrative agency fees.
Debunking Political Narratives Around Gold Purchase Losses
Critiquing the position advanced by political opponents, Sammy Gyamfi systematically dismantled the narrative propagated by Alexander Afenyo-Markin and his followers regarding the central bank’s financial results.
The opposition’s line of reasoning rests entirely on the claim that because GoldBod actively participated in aggregating gold for the Bank of Ghana throughout 2025, the board must automatically be held accountable for the financial losses recorded under the domestic gold purchase initiative.
Sammy Gyamfi characterized this logic as a complete fallacy that is entirely “bereft of fact and common sense.”
He highlighted that GoldBod was merely executing its legally assigned duties under a pre-existing agency framework that was inherited directly from the defunct PMMC. The administrative fee structure established under that agreement covers defined aggregation services, making it conceptually impossible for service fee payments to generate multi-billion dollar accounting valuation deficits.
By conflating contractual agent remuneration with portfolio revaluation adjustments, critics have constructed a false narrative that obscures the fundamental mechanics of central bank reserve management.
Contextualizing the Need for Institutional Clarification
The necessity for this comprehensive clarification arises from the critical role that gold purchasing programs play in Ghana’s national economy and extractive sector governance.
As the nation relies on domestic gold aggregation to strengthen foreign exchange reserves and stabilize the macroeconomy, public clarity surrounding the institutional roles of the central bank and its designated purchasing agents becomes essential.
Misinterpreting accounting figures risks undermining public trust in vital economic institutions and damaging the credibility of formal gold marketing frameworks.
Furthermore, this detailed explanation is imperative to ensure that technical financial reporting is not distorted for political gain. Gold purchasing involves complex international pricing benchmarks, local artisanal premiums, and currency conversion scales.
In such an intricate environment, distinguishing between unrealized accounting valuation shifts and actual operational expenditure is vital for sound public discourse. Gyamfi’s intervention ensures that public perception remains grounded in verified facts, legal contractual realities, and sound economic logic, safeguarding the integrity of Ghana’s extractive sector policies.
READ ALSO: Roads Minister Demands Day And Night Work On Tema Project
