Economic analysts have cautioned against interpreting the widely discussed $1.7 billion loss linked to Ghana’s gold purchasing programmes as evidence of outright theft, saying the figure largely reflects policy-related and accounting costs associated with the government’s gold trading strategy.
The clarification comes amid growing public debate over the financial performance of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) and the Bank of Ghana (BoG), following references to International Monetary Fund (IMF) data on losses associated with the country’s gold accumulation initiatives.
According to policy expert Dr Razak Kojo Opoku, the figure represents a combination of costs arising from the implementation of the gold purchasing strategy rather than money that has simply disappeared from state coffers.
He explained that the reported losses include service and assay fees paid to GoldBod, discounts offered on gold sold to off-takers and, significantly, exchange-rate losses resulting from differences between the forex bureau rates used to purchase gold and the cedi reference rate applied in the Bank of Ghana’s accounting.
Dr Opoku described the costs as “quasi-fiscal” in nature, arguing that government programmes can deliberately absorb financial costs in pursuit of broader economic objectives.
He cited fertilizer subsidies, the financial sector clean-up and fuel tax reductions as examples of government interventions that involve significant expenditure or foregone revenue but are intended to deliver wider public benefits.
The debate, therefore, should not focus solely on the size of the reported accounting cost, he argued, but also on what Ghana has gained from the gold accumulation strategy.
Reserves gains put losses under scrutiny
A key justification for the gold purchasing initiatives has been the strengthening of Ghana’s foreign exchange reserves.
Analysts cited in the assessment estimate that the country’s reserves have gained about $10 billion through central bank gold accumulation programmes.
This has prompted questions over whether the reported $1.7 billion cost should be viewed against the larger reserve accumulation achieved through the policy.
The argument, however, does not necessarily settle the debate over efficiency.
Questions remain about whether the same reserve gains could have been achieved through alternative mechanisms at a lower cost and whether the accounting framework accurately captures the overall economic benefits of the intervention.
Focus shifts to gold smuggling
Beyond the GoldBod accounting controversy, analysts say the much larger challenge confronting Ghana’s gold sector is illicit gold trading.
According to the assessment, Ghana is estimated to have lost about $11.4 billion through illicit gold smuggling between 2019 and 2024.
A discrepancy of more than $4 billion between Ghana’s reported gold exports and gold imports recorded by the United Arab Emirates is cited as evidence of the scale of the problem.
Dr Opoku argued that the figures should force a broader national conversation about the country’s gold sector.
He questioned whether greater attention should be placed on the $1.7 billion accounting cost associated with the state’s gold strategy or the significantly larger amount of gold revenue allegedly lost through smuggling.
Galamsey raises fresh concerns
While acknowledging the economic objectives of GoldBod, analysts have also raised questions about the environmental consequences of expanding formal gold-buying channels.
A major concern is whether GoldBod’s purchasing network could unintentionally create additional incentives for illegal small-scale mining, popularly known as galamsey.
Dr Opoku said GoldBod must demonstrate that it has effective systems to establish the origin of gold purchased through its network and prevent proceeds from illegal mining from entering the formal supply chain.
He questioned whether adequate verification mechanisms are being applied to companies and individuals supplying gold to the state-backed system.
Lessons from Gold-for-Oil
The debate also comes against the background of Ghana’s former Gold-for-Oil (G4O) programme, which was formally terminated in March 2025.
The initiative was introduced as a mechanism to reduce foreign exchange pressures associated with petroleum imports and help stabilise domestic fuel prices.
Bank of Ghana records cited in the assessment indicate that G4O accumulated direct financial losses of about GH¢2.43 billion during its operation.
The Gold-for-Reserves (G4R) and Gold-for-Oil initiatives reportedly recorded combined net trading losses of approximately GH¢5.7 billion in 2024.
The figures have renewed debate over the sustainability and efficiency of using gold as a central instrument of macroeconomic management.
Efficiency, transparency and environmental protection
The emerging debate suggests that the central issue may no longer be whether Ghana should use its gold resources to strengthen the economy, but how efficiently and transparently such interventions should be implemented.
Analysts argue that GoldBod will need to demonstrate that the benefits of its operations justify the associated costs while maintaining strict controls to prevent illegally mined gold from entering the formal market.
For policymakers, the challenge is to strengthen Ghana’s gold trading system, reduce smuggling and protect the environment without abandoning the broader objective of using the country’s gold resources to support foreign exchange reserves and economic stability.
