Economist Professor Godfred Alufar Bokpin has called for a rethink of Ghana’s GoldBod intervention, warning that the programme’s success in retaining foreign exchange must not overshadow the significant financial costs associated with it.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express, Prof. Bokpin said GoldBod had made important progress in bringing gold-related foreign exchange into the formal economy and narrowing the gap associated with gold smuggling.
He said the development was a major achievement for the institution, particularly given the longstanding challenges surrounding the informal export of gold.
“You can see that the gap has narrowed significantly with the introduction of Gold Board. And I think that is a credit to Gold Board,” he said.
However, Prof. Bokpin argued that the intervention should be judged on both its benefits and its costs.
He said the domestic gold purchase programme, which made GoldBod the central face of the intervention from 2025, had resulted in substantial losses that could have been reduced through better planning and expert input.
“There were design defects of the program,” he said, suggesting that a more comprehensive value-chain approach could have produced better outcomes.
Prof. Bokpin also cautioned against linking GoldBod directly to Ghana’s recent macroeconomic stability.
According to him, stability in inflation, the exchange rate and other key macroeconomic indicators is primarily the result of fiscal and monetary policies implemented by the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Ghana.
“In fact, that is not the job of the Gold Board. Macroeconomic stability comes from essentially fiscal and monetary policy,” he said.
He nevertheless acknowledged that GoldBod’s ability to retain more gold-related foreign exchange in Ghana could support the broader economic stabilisation process.
The economist said the full cost of the intervention should include losses associated with the domestic gold purchasing programme, as well as revenue forgone following the abolition of the 1.5% withholding tax on artisanal and small-scale gold production.
He argued that the fiscal implications could be considerable, particularly given that gold exports from the artisanal and small-scale mining sector exceed $10 billion.
Prof. Bokpin said government must therefore weigh the foreign exchange gains against the tax revenue that could otherwise have been available for public expenditure.
He further maintained that the losses being discussed publicly may not capture the full cost of the intervention.
“If you adopt a holistic approach and look at the whole intervention we put in place, the losses actually exceed the $1.7 billion we are talking about here,” he said.
Despite his criticism, Prof. Bokpin stressed that he recognised the progress made by GoldBod.
“I recognise the impact of Gold Board, and I celebrate the progress that they have made in terms of crowding in gold-related FX,” he said.
His concern, he explained, is ensuring that the gains are achieved more efficiently and without imposing unsustainable costs on the state.
Prof. Bokpin said the government, GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana had already recognised the problem and were working towards an exit arrangement.
Under the planned arrangement, he said, the losses associated with the programme are expected to decline from between 14.5% and 17% to about 5%.
For Prof. Bokpin, the next phase of GoldBod should therefore focus on preserving its success in formalising gold-related foreign exchange while significantly reducing the financial burden on the state.
