Dr. Emmanuel Steve Asare Manteaw, Chair of the Ghana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GHEITI), has recently defended the financial losses incurred by the Ghana Gold Board (Gold Bod), framing them as a necessary cost in the country’s gold market development. The policy analyst argues that Ghana has experienced losses from gold purchase programs in previous years, yet these losses haven’t garnered the same level of public scrutiny. He stated, ‘We make it look like this is the first time Ghana is making losses in its gold purchase program. I’ve looked at the data. 2022, we made a loss. In 2023, 2024, and 2025, we’ve made losses all those years. Why didn’t that become a problem?’
He cited 2024 as a pivotal example, reporting total losses of ¢5.7 billion from Gold for Oil and domestic gold purchases, totaling $1.8 billion from Gold for Oil and $3.8 billion from domestic reserves. According to Dr. Manteaw, Ghana’s gold export revenue that year was only $4 billion. He emphasized that incurring a loss to bring significantly more foreign exchange into the country should not automatically be viewed as a failure.
He further underscored that the assessment of Gold Bod must consider the broader economic impact of the foreign exchange it has brought into the country. ‘We don’t even consider the quantum of forex that GoldBoard has brought in, and so you need to look at the relativity. How much did you spend to bring in what, and what has been the impact?’
Dr. Manteaw contends that the wider economic benefits outweigh the program’s costs. ‘The impact, the economy-wide impact for me, exceeds the cost,’ he asserted. He pointed to foreign exchange stability, lower import costs, inflation, and interest rates as key drivers of this benefit. He further stated, ‘Oh yes. You have forex stability, so a business can plan properly. Your imports have gone down. I mean, in terms of cost of your imports, have gone down,’
He emphasized that Gold Bod’s losses are a transaction cost. ‘It means that we should accept that incurring losses, what we call losses, for me, they are transaction costs, and all the governments over the years have been incurring transaction costs, and that has not become a problem,’
He further explained that the context at the time of Gold Board’s mandate to operate the gold trade should be considered. ‘The context at the time when Gold Board was given the mandate to do what it’s doing now, GoldBoard needed to penetrate the market,’ he said. He explained that Gold Bod was entering a market where foreign buyers already had established relationships with Ghanaian miners. ‘There were already established relationships. The Indians were providing money, the Chinese were providing equipment, and the Turkish, they were all providing resources for Ghanaian miners in exchange for the gold,’
He stated that Gold Bod had to offer better prices to convince miners to sell to Gold Board. ‘The only way they can do that is to ensure that they offer a better price. But as you offer a better price, that’s a cost that you cannot recover through your transactions,’ he said.
He concluded that foreign buyers were purchasing gold at a discount, while Gold Bod was buying at market prices. ‘Gold Board was buying at market price, in fact, using the forex rate, I mean the forex bureau rate, which was far higher than the Bank of Ghana rate,’ he said. He stated that this created an uncovered cost but maintained that it was necessary for them to win over miners.
Dr. Manteaw urged stakeholders to assess Gold Bod’s losses in the context of the circumstances under which it entered the gold market. ‘So, we need to actually just situate the conversation within the context in which Gold Board found itself when it was given the mandate to regulate gold trade,’ he said.
He further stated that foreign exchange stability, lower import costs, inflation, and interest rates as some of the wider benefits.”
**Source:** Adomonline.com
Source: Adom Online
