The Executive Director of African Centre for Parliamentary Affairs, Dr Rasheed Draman, has urged Parliament to treat allegations involving the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board, Sammy Gyamfi, and Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo Markin with the seriousness required of a matter affecting public accountability.
Dr Draman argued that the position of Minority Leader carries constitutional and institutional importance, particularly within a Parliament where the minority is expected to scrutinise government decisions and demand accountability from public officials. He explained that allegations involving such a senior parliamentary figure could affect the credibility of the oversight process if they remain unresolved, making an impartial process necessary to establish the facts surrounding the dispute.
According to the governance expert, the issue has also become significant because the Minority Leader is expected to possess the moral authority required to question decisions taken by government and institutions responsible for managing public resources. The Executive Director therefore proposed a bipartisan parliamentary inquiry to determine the facts and establish whether the allegations made against Alexander Afenyo Markin by Sammy Gyamfi have any basis.
“We need the truth, so that at least at the end of the day, we will know whether the CEO of the Gold Board is speaking the truth or not.”
Dr Rasheed Draman
Dr Draman noted that the inquiry should provide an opportunity for all sides to present evidence and allow Parliament to determine the appropriate course of action based on verified information.He also explained that the matter extends beyond the immediate disagreement between two individuals because the allegations touch on Parliament’s ability to exercise effective oversight over institutions involved in managing national resources.
From his perspective, leaving the claims unresolved could weaken public confidence in the parliamentary accountability process and create uncertainty around future scrutiny by the minority caucus. The governance expert therefore stressed that establishing the truth would serve the interests of both the Minority Leader and the GoldBod chief executive, depending on what the evidence ultimately reveals.
He outlined that if the allegations prove unfounded, appropriate steps should be considered to protect the integrity of the parliamentary office involved, while any established wrongdoing should receive the necessary institutional response. Dr Draman also referenced the reported losses associated with the domestic gold purchase programme and explained that the financial implications make parliamentary scrutiny especially important for citizens who depend on public resources for essential services.
He indicated that questions surrounding the programme should receive proper examination through the appropriate parliamentary mechanisms, with evidence taking precedence over political interpretations of the dispute.Against this backdrop, the governance expert maintained that Parliament must demonstrate that its oversight responsibilities apply across political lines and that allegations involving public officials can be examined without partisan protection.
Parliament Must Establish Facts Behind GoldBod Dispute
The demand for a bipartisan inquiry also centres on the need to protect the authority of Parliament as an institution of accountability. Dr Draman explained that the Minority Leader’s effectiveness depends partly on the confidence citizens place in the office and its ability to scrutinise government without unresolved allegations hanging over its holder.
Addressing the political implications, the Executive Director observed that the controversy could deepen existing divisions if supporters of the National Democratic Congress and the New Patriotic Party interpret the allegations according to their political loyalties. He noted that supporters on opposing sides could easily reach different conclusions without access to independently established facts, making an institutional process necessary to settle the matter.
Dr Draman linked the issue to the wider principle of institutional trust, arguing that Parliament must demonstrate that disputes involving public officials can be subjected to transparent scrutiny. In addition, he explained that the outcome could establish an important precedent for future parliamentary oversight, especially when members of the minority raise questions about the management of public institutions.
The focus, in his view, should therefore remain on protecting the integrity of the oversight process and ensuring that legitimate parliamentary questions receive proper attention without personal allegations becoming a means of diverting the debate.
Referencing the possibility of future changes in government, Dr Draman noted that political parties could find themselves on opposite sides of the parliamentary divide at different times. He consequently argued that the current handling of the dispute should establish standards that can serve every political administration.
The Executive Director further urged Parliament to consider the institutional consequences of allowing serious allegations involving senior political figures to remain unresolved. A credible determination, he explained, would help restore confidence in the parliamentary process and provide clarity for the public.
Meanwhile, the controversy has also placed renewed emphasis on the relationship between parliamentary oversight and public institutions responsible for managing national resources. Dr Draman explained that effective oversight requires parliamentarians to retain sufficient credibility when demanding answers from state agencies.
He consequently urged the relevant parliamentary authorities to approach the matter with fairness and allow the available evidence to guide the process. Such an approach, he noted, would help distinguish legitimate accountability from political confrontation.
Beyond the immediate allegations, the Executive Director pointed to the need for Parliament to strengthen public confidence in its oversight responsibilities. He argued that citizens should be able to trust that disputes involving senior officials can be resolved through institutions instead of prolonged political exchanges.
The parliamentary affairs specialist also indicated that a transparent process would protect the reputation of the Minority Leader if the allegations are found to be unsubstantiated. At the same time, any evidence establishing wrongdoing would provide Parliament with a basis for taking appropriate action.
READ ALSO: Ghana Loses $1.2bn Reserves Amid Middle East Tensions
