An objective assessment of Ghana’s gold trading initiatives shows that the $1.7 billion figure cited by the IMF as “losses” at the Ghana Gold Board, GoldBod, represents policy-related accounting costs and not direct cash losses to the state, according to governance analyst Dr. Razak Kojo Opoku.
In a detailed review released on Monday, Dr. Opoku argued that the losses must be weighed against GoldBod’s contribution to foreign exchange reserves, cedi stability and the fight against illegal gold smuggling, which he says has cost Ghana far more.
The Mandate Of GoldBod
Dr. Opoku outlined three specific objectives of GoldBod:
1. To increase national foreign exchange reserves
2. To stabilize the cedi
3. To curb illegal gold smuggling
He said these goals were set to reduce Ghana’s reliance on volatile external financing and to retain more value from the country’s gold resources domestically.
Breaking Down The $1.7 Billion IMF Figure
The IMF has reported purported losses of $1.7 billion linked to GoldBod’s operations.
However, Dr. Opoku explained that the losses are not from missing cash, but from what the IMF describes as “policy-related accounting cost” or “quasi-fiscal cost.”
Citing page 10 of the IMF report, he noted: “Losses accrued on gold trades are a combination of service and assay fees paid to GoldBod, discounts on gold sold to off-takers/exporters and most importantly, exchange rate losses from the spread between the forex bureau rate paid to purchase gold and the cedi reference rate used for Bank of Ghana accounting.”
“Therefore, it is unfair to solely blame GoldBod for the $1.7 billion losses when Bank of Ghana is clearly in the picture,” he stated.
What Is A “Quasi-Fiscal Cost”?
To illustrate, Dr. Opoku compared the concept to other government policy decisions with fiscal implications:
1. GH¢207 million fertilizer subsidy– a 50% price cut to benefit farmers
2. GH¢25 billion banking sector clean-up– to protect depositors’ funds
3. GH¢2 per litre fuel price cut– to cushion consumers at the pump
“In each case, the state absorbs a cost to achieve a broader policy objective. The GoldBod trading losses fall into the same category,” he said.
Is GoldBod Delivering On Its Objectives?
1. Foreign Exchange Reserves
Dr. Opoku said yes. GoldBod has contributed significantly to building reserves, with an estimated $10 billion added to the national forex kitty.
“Is it prudent to lose $1.7 billion to attract $10 billion in reserves?” he asked. “The question is whether there is a better alternative gold trading policy that can raise $10 billion without incurring $1.7 billion in quasi-fiscal costs.”
2. Cedi Stabilization
He also answered yes, noting “relative stability of the cedi against the US Dollar and other major trading currencies since the introduction of GoldBod initiatives.”
He added that while there is room for improvement, the goal should be a stronger cedi where “$1 is equivalent to GH¢5.”
3. Curbing Gold Smuggling
Here, progress has been made but more work is needed, he said. Citing the IMF, Dr. Opoku noted that Ghana lost an estimated $11.4 billion to gold smuggling between 2019 and 2024. The discrepancy between Ghana’s reported gold exports and UAE import records exceeded $4 billion in the same period.
“$1.7 billion loss from policy-related accounting cost versus $11.4 billion lost to smuggling which should we be worried about most as citizens?” he posed.
Galamsey And GoldBod’s Due Diligence
Dr. Opoku raised three key concerns on the impact of GoldBod on illegal mining:
1. What measures has GoldBod put in place to ensure it does not purchase gold from galamsey operators?
2. Is GoldBod’s operation inadvertently contributing to rising galamsey activity?
3. By what dollar estimate has GoldBod succeeded in reducing gold smuggling?
He called for greater transparency and traceability mechanisms to ensure GoldBod’s purchases do not fuel illegal mining.
Lessons From Gold-For-Oil And Gold-For-Reserves
The analysis also reviewed the defunct Gold-For-Oil, G4O programme, which ran from 2022 to March 2025. Its objectives were to ease pressure on forex reserves and stabilize fuel prices.
According to Bank of Ghana data cited by Dr. Opoku, G4O incurred financial losses of about GHS 2.43 billion. Combined with Gold-For-Reserves, G4R, the net loss for 2024 was estimated at GHS 5.66 billion, approximately GHS 5.7 billion.
“The question is: were the policies of G4O and G4R able to achieve their intended purposes of currency stability, fuel price stabilization, and reduction of gold smuggling?” he asked.
Dr. Opoku concluded that while the $1.7 billion quasi-fiscal cost is significant, it is “better compared to losing $11.4 billion between 2019-2024 to gold smuggling.”
He said the debate should not be about abandoning gold-backed policy tools, but about refining them.
“As a country, should we revert to Gold-For-Oil, revert to Gold-For-Reserves, or maintain and strengthen the Ghana Gold Board? That is the policy question Ghanaians must answer based on facts, not headlines,” he stated.
