Political commentator and policy analyst, Dr Razak Kojo Opoku, has argued that the reported US$1.7 billion loss associated with Ghana’s gold trading programme should be understood in the context of the broader objectives of the GoldBod initiative.
In an assessment of Ghana’s gold trading arrangements, Dr Opoku said the key objectives of GoldBod were to increase the country’s foreign exchange reserves, support stability of the Cedi and curb gold smuggling.
His comments follow concerns over figures contained in an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report, which he said attributed the US$1.7 billion figure to policy-related accounting costs, also described as “quasi-fiscal” costs, trading shortfalls and transaction costs.
According to him, the IMF identified several components of the reported cost, including service and assay fees paid to GoldBod, discounts on gold sold to off-takers and exchange-rate differences between the rates used to purchase gold and the reference rate applied by the Bank of Ghana for accounting purposes.
Dr Opoku therefore cautioned against placing the entire responsibility for the reported figure on GoldBod, arguing that the Bank of Ghana also played a role in the transactions and accounting treatment.
Dr Opoku said GoldBod had contributed significantly to Ghana’s foreign exchange reserves, estimating the contribution at about US$10 billion.
He, however, questioned whether there could be a more efficient policy that would generate similar foreign exchange benefits without incurring the reported costs.
On the cedi, he said there had been relative stability against the US dollar and other major currencies since the introduction of GoldBod-related initiatives, although he acknowledged that more improvements were needed.
He said the ultimate objective should be to build an economy where the cedi performs significantly better against major international currencies.
Dr Opoku also argued that GoldBod had made progress in addressing gold smuggling but still had more work to do.
He cited an IMF estimate that Ghana lost approximately US$11.4 billion to gold smuggling between 2019 and 2024, while the discrepancy between Ghana’s reported gold exports and the United Arab Emirates’ recorded imports exceeded US$4 billion.
He therefore questioned whether public attention should focus more heavily on the much larger economic losses associated with gold smuggling.
He also called for greater scrutiny of GoldBod’s measures to prevent gold sourced from illegal mining, or galamsey, from entering the formal gold-buying system.
Among the questions he raised were whether GoldBod’s operations could inadvertently encourage illegal mining and how much the institution had contributed to reducing gold smuggling in measurable dollar terms
Dr Opoku also compared the GoldBod arrangements with the former Gold-for-Oil (G4O) programme, which was discontinued in March 2025.
According to him, the G4O programme was introduced to reduce pressure on Ghana’s foreign exchange reserves and help stabilise domestic fuel prices.
He said Bank of Ghana figures showed that the programme incurred losses of approximately GHS2.43 billion before its termination.
He further cited an estimated combined net loss of about GHS5.66 billion from gold trading under the Gold-for-Oil and Gold-for-Reserves arrangements in 2024.
Dr Opoku said the central question for policymakers should not be whether the reported US$1.7 billion cost exists, but whether the benefits of the gold-for-reserves strategy justify the costs and whether better alternatives are available.
He argued that the reported US$1.7 billion should be distinguished from a direct loss of cash by the state if, as he interprets the IMF report, the figure represents policy-related accounting and quasi-fiscal costs.
He nonetheless called for a comprehensive assessment of GoldBod’s performance, particularly its impact on foreign exchange reserves, cedi stability, gold smuggling and illegal mining.
He concluded by posing a broader policy question: whether Ghana should maintain the GoldBod framework, revive Gold-for-Oil, or develop an alternative gold-trading model capable of achieving the country’s economic objectives at lower cost
