Ghana’s Gold Board (GoldBod) has significantly reduced gold smuggling and helped channel foreign exchange into the formal economy that previously leaked out of the country, but the intervention has come at a far greater cost than the US$1.7 billion in reported losses, economist Professor Godfred Alufar Bokpin has said.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express as GoldBod marked approximately one year of operations, Prof. Bokpin said the gap between Ghana’s gold export figures and those recorded by importing countries has narrowed markedly since the board’s inception.
“There is no doubt that Gold Board has helped significantly in crowding in gold-related FX,” he said. “We can see the impact of Gold Board activities in terms of crowding in FX — foreign exchange that previously had been smuggled and didn’t ultimately end up in this country, probably ended up in private accounts outside this country whilst the cedi continually depreciates.”
GoldBod by the numbers
Established in April 2025, GoldBod was created as the central institution responsible for purchasing, trading and exporting gold, particularly from the artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) sector. The intervention was designed to formalise gold trading, curb smuggling and increase foreign exchange inflows through gold exports.
Between January 2025 and May 2026, the government purchased a total of 135.843 metric tonnes of gold through GoldBod, valued at approximately US10 billion in revenue for the country. The inflows contributed to a 41% appreciation of the cedi in 2025 and helped increase foreign exchange reserves from US13.8 billion.
As of May 31, 2026, GoldBod had licensed a total of 1,184 gold buyers, comprising two aggregators, 67 self-financing aggregators, 736 Tier 2 buyers and 379 Tier 1 buyers.
The cost of success
Despite these achievements, Prof. Bokpin warned that the programme has come at a “significant loss” to the country. The International Monetary Fund’s Country Report No. 26/213 revealed that losses from the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme — operated through GoldBod — exceeded US214 million loss the IMF first flagged in December 2025.
The IMF attributed the losses to fees, assay charges, trading margins, off-taking costs and exchange-rate differences.
But Prof. Bokpin believes the US$1.7 billion figure does not capture the full cost to Ghana. “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.
‘Design defects’ could have been avoided
Prof. Bokpin attributed the losses partly to what he described as “design defects” in the programme. He argued that better planning and expert input — particularly a comprehensive assessment of the gold value chain — could have minimised the financial burden while preserving the benefits.
“The intervention was aggressively scaled up without even anticipating the total cost that was going to come along,” he said. “With better planning, transparency and openness to expert suggestions, we could have reduced the financial burden.”
He recalled that when the IMF initially reported losses of about US$214 million, both GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana questioned the figures, arguing that the actual position should be determined after the accounts had been audited. “That clearly tells me that we couldn’t fully anticipate the cost implications across the value chain,” he said.
Broader fiscal costs overlooked
Prof. Bokpin further pointed to the abolition of the 1.5% withholding tax on gold from artisanal and small-scale miners as an additional fiscal cost that should be included in any comprehensive assessment. With total gold exports from artisanal miners exceeding US$10 billion annually, the foregone revenue represents a significant drain on the state’s fiscal envelope.
“These are fiscal losses which could have gone to our revenue envelope, probably to fund roads, schools, and infrastructure,” he said. “We have to give up that also, all in the name of trying to crowd in the FX.”
He also cautioned against attributing broader macroeconomic stability to GoldBod, arguing that such responsibility rests primarily with fiscal and monetary authorities — the Bank of Ghana and the Ministry of Finance. “Macroeconomic stability comes from essentially fiscal and monetary policy,” he said. “We cannot say GoldBod can take that benefit while the costs are treated solely as a BoG problem. It’s one country. It’s one economy.”
Costs ‘unsustainable’ as government moves to reform
Prof. Bokpin noted that the government itself recognises the existing cost structure cannot continue. “Government itself, together with the Gold Board and the Bank of Ghana, recognise that these losses are not sustainable going forward.”
He said an exit plan is being pursued to sharply reduce the costs. Under the Bank of Ghana’s exit plan, the cost per ounce is expected to fall from 14.5% in 2025 to about 5%.
Political storm over GoldBod losses
The controversy has ignited a fierce political debate. The Minority in Parliament has accused GoldBod of causing a financial loss of GH¢22 billion to the state and has filed a motion seeking comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny of the board’s operations. Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin warned that “GoldBod is a very big scandal awaiting us” and that officials responsible may face “post-regime accountability”.
GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi has rejected the claims, pointing to the institution’s audited 2025 financial statements, which recorded an operational surplus of GH¢909.7 million and an overall surplus of GH¢5.44 billion.
Despite his criticisms, Prof. Bokpin acknowledged the programme’s substantial benefits. “I recognise the impact of Gold Board, and I celebrate the progress that they have made in terms of crowding in gold-related FX, which ordinarily would have been smuggled or lost,” he said.
But he maintained that the costs cannot be ignored. “If you look at the benefit in terms of macroeconomic stability, I will say the benefit is quite substantial,” he said. “But we must also recognise the cost — the huge cost associated with implementing this intervention.”
