Ghana's Gold Board (GoldBod) has recorded a significant surplus exceeding GHS 4 billion, according to James Agalga. Mr. Agalga is the Ranking Member on Parliament’s Defence and Interior Committee. He stated that GoldBod has never incurred losses from its domestic gold purchasing operations.
This declaration directly challenges claims that the national gold trading scheme has suffered financial setbacks. Mr. Agalga’s comments come as the Minority in Parliament pushes for an ad hoc committee. This committee would investigate what the Minority describes as losses from the government’s gold trading scheme. GoldBod’s reported surplus indicates a strong financial performance, contrary to these allegations.
This debate over GoldBod’s financial health is crucial for Ghana’s economic stability. The Domestic Gold Purchase Programme aims to bolster the cedi against the US dollar. Any perceived losses could undermine public confidence in this key economic strategy. The programme also supports local gold miners by providing a ready market for their produce. Its success is vital for both currency stability and the mining sector.
Mr. Agalga confirmed his discussions with GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi and reviewed relevant documents. He stated, “Gold Board itself has never incurred losses. On the contrary, they have made a surplus, huge, in the region of what, 4 billion plus, thereabout, and that is captured in the Auditor-General’s report.” This direct attribution provides a clear counter-narrative to the Minority's concerns. He added that GoldBod welcomes any opportunity to clarify these issues.
The implications of this financial dispute are significant for Ghana’s public finance management. A parliamentary probe could either vindicate GoldBod or expose potential inefficiencies. Investors and citizens will closely watch how this investigation unfolds. The outcome will influence future government commodity trading policies and transparency standards. It will also shape perceptions of accountability within state-owned enterprises.
Mr. Agalga pointed to the 2025 Auditor-General’s report. He argued that it contains no adverse findings against GoldBod. This suggests that official audits support GoldBod’s claims of profitability. He also cited a 2023 agreement between the now-defunct Precious Minerals Marketing Company (PMMC) and the Bank of Ghana. This agreement details costs associated with the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme. GoldBod succeeded PMMC, inheriting its assets and liabilities, including this agreement.
The agreement clarifies that costs for gold purchases include security, insurance, assay, and smelting. Mr. Agalga explained, “Remember, the Gold Board is an agent of the Bank of Ghana. The principal must pay for the cost.” This highlights that certain operational expenses are borne by the Bank of Ghana. This arrangement is standard for agency relationships in financial transactions. It ensures that GoldBod’s role as an agent is clearly defined.
Mr. Agalga argued that any proposed parliamentary probe should not be limited to 2025. The Domestic Gold Purchase Programme began in 2021. He believes Parliament must examine how gold purchases were handled under previous administrations. He suggested, “Maybe what we need to do is probably to extend the scope of the probe.” This broader scope would provide a complete picture of the programme’s financial history.
He cited an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report. This report indicated that 400 million US dollars was lost through the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme. Mr. Agalga explained that the programme was a deliberate government policy. It aimed to support the cedi against the dollar. He stated, “It was a deliberate government policy, so we had to spend money. The Bank of Ghana had to spend money to achieve those objectives.” This suggests that some costs were strategic investments, not necessarily losses.
Mr. Agalga also questioned whether PMMC bought gold using forex bureau rates in 2021. He wondered if this differed from Bank of Ghana rates. Such differences could have created additional costs. He urged Parliament to determine who bore those costs then. He also asked if the same practice continues today. A comprehensive investigation would clarify these historical financial practices.
Limiting the investigation to only 2025 could undermine the entire process. Mr. Agalga warned, “If you limit your investigation, when in actual fact we are talking about an agreement which is still in force and I have copies which hasn’t been terminated, it dates back to 2023, that agreement that I’ve seen between the Precious Minerals Marketing Company and the Bank of Ghana, which is still in force, and you limit the scope to only 2025, you’ll be doing a grave disservice to the people of this country.” He called for a thorough investigation to establish the full financial picture. This would ensure transparency and accountability for all stakeholders.