Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, has ignited a significant debate regarding the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) response to allegations concerning financial losses incurred during Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, specifically the Gold-for-Oil (G4O) initiative. His recent comments, delivered against the backdrop of the NPP’s earlier rejection of IMANI Africa’s claims of GH¢7.2 billion in financial leakage, mark a deliberate challenge to the party’s previously defended costs associated with the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme. This accusation stems from a stark contrast to the NPP’s previous stance, which in 2025, unequivocally rejected allegations of financial mismanagement and corruption, stating that the figures cited by IMANI Africa were a ‘distortion of audited financial data.’
Mr. Gyamfi’s assertion directly confronts the NPP’s current criticism, arguing that the party previously defended similar costs incurred under the G4O programme. This points to a strategic shift in the NPP’s approach, reflecting a potential disagreement over the interpretation and application of financial accountability within the context of the G4O initiative. His quote, taken from a Newsfile interview on JoyNews on August 22, 2025, highlights a crucial point: the NPP’s argument centered on the Bank of Ghana’s foreign exchange liquidity support cost, framing the expenditure as necessary for facilitating petroleum product imports under the G4O programme. The argument was posited that this cost, representing a critical element of forex stability, was not indicative of illicit financial flows or corruption.
Furthermore, Mr. Gyamfi’s argument underscored the traceability of the Bank of Ghana’s seed capital and the publication of reported costs in the central bank’s audited financial statements. This traceability, he asserted, demonstrates a transparent and verifiable process for managing funds associated with the G4O programme, directly challenging the NPP’s claim of a lack of evidence of diversion or leakage.
In a detailed breakdown, Mr. Gyamfi quoted the NPP’s statement as indicating that the costs were presented as a mechanism to stabilize foreign exchange supply, supporting Gold-for-Oil imports. He specifically pointed to the party’s assertion that the expenditure was ‘not diversions of funds, but the cost of stabilizing forex supply to facilitate Gold-for-Oil imports.’ This framing underscores a critical distinction between the accounting costs and the broader economic benefits generated by the programme.
The NPP’s earlier assertion that the G4O programme’s costs were not evidence of corruption or mismanagement, as they argued, is now being questioned by Mr. Gyamfi. He contends that the party’s prior defense of the G4O programme should serve as a benchmark for assessing the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme. The NPP’s stance, in his view, demonstrates a failure to distinguish between accounting losses and evidence of actual financial wrongdoing. He advocates for a consistent assessment of the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, demanding a clearer delineation between the accounting costs and the tangible economic benefits achieved.
Mr. Gyamfi’s call for a re-evaluation of the NPP’s assessment of the G4O programme underscores the importance of examining the broader economic impacts of the programme, not merely focusing on accounting losses. The core of his challenge lies in prompting a reconsideration of whether the G4O’s costs, without considering the broader economic gains, constitute sufficient justification for the expenditure. The question of whether the G4O programme could have been achieved at a lower cost remains a key point of contention, and the NPP’s previous defense appears to be a significant departure from the current debate. The precise implications of this challenge for Ghana’s economic strategy are substantial and warrant careful analysis.
Watch Related Video
Source: Adom Online
