Professor James Atta Peprah has challenged the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod)’s attempt to distance itself from the reported US$1.7 billion loss associated with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP), arguing that the financial outcome still carries economic consequences regardless of how it is classified.
The economist’s comments come amid a growing debate over who should bear responsibility for the losses reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and whether the GoldBod model exposes the central bank to risks that should instead be carried by the gold trading institution.
Speaking on Citi FM’s Eyewitness News on Wednesday, August 19, Prof Atta Peprah rejected the suggestion that the reported loss should be treated as having no significant economic effect.
“Every loss is a loss. Every loss has immediate or short-term consequences and long-term consequences.”
He argued that the financial relationship between GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana makes it difficult to consider the two institutions’ interests entirely separately when the central bank provides financing for gold purchases.
His position is that if the Bank of Ghana ultimately carries the financial exposure created by the programme, the losses can affect the central bank’s balance sheet even if the transactions themselves are conducted through GoldBod.
GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi has strongly disputed descriptions of the $1.7 billion figure as a GoldBod loss.
Speaking at the Government Accountability Series on August 19, Gyamfi said the figure cited from the IMF report relates to losses incurred by the Bank of Ghana under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, rather than a loss recorded by GoldBod as an institution.
Gyamfi described claims that GoldBod itself recorded a $1.7 billion loss as a “barefaced lie” and challenged Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin to identify where the IMF report directly attributed the amount to GoldBod.
He also pointed to GoldBod’s audited financial statements, saying the institution recorded an operational surplus of GH¢907 million and an overall surplus exceeding GH¢5.4 billion.
Prof Atta Peprah believes the financing structure should be changed to reduce the Bank of Ghana’s exposure to GoldBod’s commercial activities.
He proposed that GoldBod should raise funds from the open money market at commercial rates rather than depend on the central bank to finance its gold purchases.
In his view, separating GoldBod’s trading activities from the Bank of Ghana would make it clearer where commercial risks and losses belong.
The proposal comes as GoldBod’s institutional role has expanded. Under the revised framework, GoldBod took over the Bank of Ghana’s role in the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme from April 2026, including financing, purchasing, assaying and exporting artisanal gold. From July 1, 2026, the government was also expected to cover operating costs related to gold purchases.
The disagreement has implications beyond the headline $1.7 billion figure.
The Bank of Ghana’s financial strength is important to monetary policy and broader economic stability. The IMF has warned that losses associated with the domestic gold programme weakened the central bank’s balance sheet and has called for greater transparency and limits on quasi-fiscal activities.
GoldBod, meanwhile, has defended the broader economic rationale of the programme, pointing to its role in increasing formal gold purchases and supporting foreign-exchange reserves.
The immediate issue is therefore one of accountability and risk allocation: whether the financial costs of Ghana’s gold-reserve strategy should remain with the central bank, be absorbed through the national budget, or be carried more directly by GoldBod as a commercial institution.
