Today, I decided to check and further verify the facts and data across multiple sources including documents from IMF and World Bank, plus the Auditor-General Report 2025. The fact is that $1.7 billion (GH¢ 22 billion) losses were NOT directly recorded by GOLDBOD but were recorded on the Bank of Ghana’s books, arising from the gold purchase programme, reflecting in the Bank of Ghana’s financial statements.
Therefore, we CANNOT blame GOLDBOD for the GH¢ 22 billion ($1.7 billion) losses incurred by Bank of Ghana.
Instead of limiting the debate to the personality of Sammy Gyamfi, a much more better approach to the accountability discussion should have been comprehensively focusing on whether or not it was prudent for Bank of Ghana to incur the GH¢ 22 billion($1.7 billion) losses to stabilize the Cedi & curb gold smuggling.
And also, the debate should be able to challenge the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for stating that, “the $1.7 billion(GH¢ 22 billion) represents macro-fiscal policy costs(policy-related accounting cost or Quasi-fiscal cost or quasi-fiscal expenditures relative to national stabilization goals) and exchange-rate valuation differences on the books of Bank of Ghana rather than physical cash losses or corporate trading deficits by the GoldBod”.
Unless, maybe there is a political score to settle with Sammy Gyamfi, it is extremely difficult to single him out for political crucifixion because clearly the IMF Report never stated that GoldBod has incurred GH¢ 22 billion ($1.7 billion) losses.
However, Sammy Gyamfi should also understand that if you are being attacked for NOT incurring the GH¢ 22 billion($1.7 billion) losses, then imagine the level of attacks he will attract if in future GoldBod actually incur losses.
The current accountability pressures should serve as RED Signal for the management of GoldBod to be extra vigilant and continue doing what is right within the framework of laws governing gold trading, and also be guided by Public Financial Management Act and Public Procurement Act.
