Outgoing Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga has defended the government’s gold purchasing policy amid controversy over reported losses linked to the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP).
Speaking in Parliament on Monday, August 24, 2026, Ayariga argued that what has been described as “losses” should instead be understood as costs associated with efforts to stabilise the Ghana cedi and strengthen the country’s economy.
His comments come after the Minority in Parliament raised concerns over an alleged US$1.7 billion loss associated with the DGPP and demanded greater transparency over how the programme was operated.
Ayariga said the government deliberately expanded gold purchases through the programme, meaning the financial costs associated with the intervention also increased. He maintained that those costs must be considered alongside the wider economic objectives of the policy.
He described the GoldBod policy as one of the government’s strongest economic interventions, arguing that it had helped support the cedi and contributed to lower inflation.
The debate, however, involves an important distinction between GoldBod’s own financial position and losses recorded under the Bank of Ghana’s gold purchase programme.
GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi has separately rejected claims that the institution itself made a US$1.7 billion loss. He said the reported figure relates to the Bank of Ghana’s DGPP and not GoldBod’s own 2025 operations.
GoldBod says its audited accounts recorded an operational surplus of GH¢907 million and an overall surplus exceeding GH¢5.4 billion for 2025.
Gyamfi has also argued that GoldBod acted primarily as a buying agent for the central bank under the programme and was not responsible for the subsequent sale of the gold or the determination of off-take prices.
The Minority has taken a different position, arguing that the government must account fully for the costs associated with the programme, including gold purchases, pricing decisions, fees and sales to off-takers.
The International Monetary Fund has also featured in the debate, with GoldBod maintaining that the reported losses were linked largely to the scaling-up of the programme and factors including exchange-rate effects and gold pricing arrangements.
Ayariga said reforms were underway to move responsibility for the relevant transactions from the Bank of Ghana to the government, suggesting that the concerns surrounding the arrangement could eventually be addressed.
The controversy therefore goes beyond whether GoldBod itself made a profit or loss.
At the centre of the debate is whether the financial costs associated with the gold purchase programme were justified by its intended economic benefits, including foreign-exchange accumulation and support for the cedi.
