Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has defended the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Minority Caucus’ scrutiny of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), insisting that its concerns are about the financial impact of government policy rather than political or personal differences.
Speaking on Eyewitness News on Tuesday, August 18, Mr Afenyo-Markin said the Minority’s position was informed by concerns it believes have also been raised in assessments by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
He urged the government to address the substance of the concerns surrounding GoldBod instead of turning the debate into a personal or political confrontation.
“Let us not go on the path of insult, go personal, get petty and give the impression that somebody is after somebody and somebody doesn’t like somebody’s face. That is not the issue,” he said.
According to the Minority Leader, the central question is whether policies implemented through GoldBod have resulted in financial losses to the state.
“The issue is about institutional inefficiency. The issue is about a policy failure leading to financial loss to the state to the tune of $1.7 billion, equivalent of GH¢22 billion,” he said.
Mr Afenyo-Markin argued that the IMF’s assessment of Ghana’s gold purchase programme was publicly available and therefore should form part of the discussion about GoldBod’s operations.
His comments come amid a growing disagreement over the financial performance of GoldBod, with the Minority’s claims being challenged by the Institute of Fiscal Policy Governance.
The institute has disputed the assertion that GoldBod recorded losses of approximately US$1.7 billion, or GH¢22 billion, in 2025.
It argues that the figure is not supported by GoldBod’s audited financial statements, which it says present a materially different picture of the institution’s financial position.
The conflicting interpretations have intensified debate over the cost and effectiveness of the government’s gold purchasing programme and the financial implications for the state.
Mr Afenyo-Markin, however, maintained that the Minority’s objective was to draw attention to what it considers weaknesses in GoldBod’s operations and policies, rather than pursue a personal agenda against its management.
