- GoldBod Rejects Loss Claims, Cites GH¢5.44 billion Surplus as Defence of State Gold Strategy
Ghana Gold Board has rejected allegations that it is operating at a loss, insisting that its audited financial statements show a strong surplus and validate the state’s growing intervention in the gold trade as a pillar of Ghana’s macroeconomic stabilisation strategy.
In a forceful response to claims by members of the New Patriotic Party Minority Caucus, GoldBod Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi said the state gold trading agency recorded an operational surplus of GH¢909.70 million and an overall surplus of GH¢5.44 billion for the 2025 financial year.
According to Mr Gyamfi, the figures are contained in GoldBod’s audited annual report prepared by the Auditor-General, and therefore provide a factual basis for assessing the institution’s performance rather than relying on what he described as politically motivated accusations.
The response marks the latest escalation in the political scrutiny surrounding GoldBod, which has become one of the government’s most visible economic instruments following its expanded role in formalising gold purchases, strengthening foreign exchange inflows and supporting reserve accumulation.
The NPP critics have alleged that the institution is losing money and mismanaging public funds. GoldBod, however, says the charge is contradicted by its audited financial position, which it argues shows not only that the agency is financially viable, but that it is contributing materially to Ghana’s external-sector management.
The dispute is significant because GoldBod is no ordinary state agency. It sits at the intersection of mineral policy, foreign exchange supply, reserve accumulation, small-scale mining formalisation and macroeconomic stability. Any question about its financial performance therefore carries broader implications for confidence in government’s gold-led economic strategy.
Mr Gyamfi said the institution had continued to deliver against its mandate despite a difficult operating environment. According to GoldBod, international gold prices have declined by more than 23.00% since February 2026, while pricing incentives under its baseline implementation programme have been reduced from roughly 14.00% to 6.00%.
That detail is important. It suggests GoldBod is arguing that its surplus was achieved not in a cost-free environment, but in a market where external price conditions and internal incentive structures had become less favourable. The agency’s defence is therefore not simply that it made a surplus, but that it remained profitable while absorbing tighter margins.
GoldBod said it remains on course to meet its surplus target for the 2026 financial year, while maintaining performance across gold purchases, foreign exchange generation, support for Ghana’s gold reserve accumulation, local value addition and sustainability initiatives.
The agency’s statement is likely to deepen debate over the government’s use of gold as a stabilisation tool. The Finance Ministry has already positioned gold-sector formalisation as one of the central reforms supporting Ghana’s recovery, arguing in the 2026 Mid-Year Fiscal Policy Review that GoldBod helped generate additional foreign exchange inflows, strengthen reserves and support exchange-rate stability.
That macroeconomic role explains why allegations of losses are politically sensitive. If GoldBod is profitable and operationally effective, government can present it as evidence that state-led coordination in the gold sector is producing measurable benefits. If, however, the agency were operating at a loss or relying on opaque public support, critics would have grounds to question whether the gold strategy is creating hidden fiscal risks.
This is why audited accounts matter. Political claims may shape public debate, but financial statements determine credibility. Mr Gyamfi’s emphasis on the Auditor-General’s report is clearly intended to shift the discussion from rhetoric to verifiable numbers.
Still, the controversy also points to a larger governance requirement. As GoldBod becomes more important to Ghana’s external position, the institution will face greater scrutiny over how it prices gold, finances purchases, manages foreign exchange, reports margins, supports small-scale miners and accounts for costs linked to reserve accumulation.
The more central GoldBod becomes to macroeconomic policy, the higher the transparency burden becomes.
For investors, the agency’s claim of a GH¢5.44 billion overall surplus will be read as a positive signal, particularly if backed by detailed audited disclosures. It suggests that the institution is not merely a policy vehicle, but an entity capable of generating financial returns while supporting broader national objectives.
For opposition parties, however, the issue is unlikely to end with the statement. GoldBod’s expanding role gives critics a powerful line of questioning: whether the state should be so deeply involved in gold trading, whether the model creates market distortions, whether public funds are exposed, and whether the institution’s operations are transparent enough for a sector of such national importance.
That debate is healthy if it is anchored in evidence. Ghana’s gold sector is too important to be reduced to partisan slogans. Gold is now one of the country’s most consequential sources of foreign exchange, and its management affects the cedi, reserves, fiscal confidence, investor sentiment and the livelihoods of miners and communities.
GoldBod’s surplus claim therefore does more than defend an institution. It defends a policy model.
The government’s argument is that formalising the gold trade allows the state to capture value that previously leaked through informal channels, smuggling and fragmented market structures. Critics worry that state intervention may introduce political discretion, operational opacity and fiscal exposure.
Both sides are effectively debating the same question: can Ghana use gold more strategically without creating new governance risks?
GoldBod’s response suggests it believes the answer is yes. By citing an operational surplus of GH¢909.70 million and an overall surplus of GH¢5.44 billion, the agency is presenting itself as financially strong, commercially disciplined and strategically useful to the state.
But the next stage of the debate will require more than headline surplus figures. The public will need clearer disclosure of revenues, costs, financing arrangements, pricing methodology, exchange-rate treatment, incentive payments, reserves contribution and exposure to gold-price movements.
That level of transparency would strengthen GoldBod’s own case. If the agency is delivering both financial surplus and macroeconomic value, regular public reporting will help protect it from politically driven allegations while reassuring investors and citizens that the institution is being run prudently.
Mr Gyamfi’s statement is therefore an important rebuttal, but it should also be treated as an invitation to deeper accountability. GoldBod has entered the centre of Ghana’s economic management. Institutions at the centre must expect scrutiny.
For now, the agency has answered its critics with numbers. It says it is not making losses. It says it has posted a GH¢5.44 billion surplus. It says it remains on course for 2026 despite weaker gold prices and lower pricing incentives.
The political argument will continue. But the substantive issue is larger than party politics. Ghana’s gold strategy has become one of the biggest bets in the country’s post-crisis recovery.
If GoldBod can sustain surpluses, improve transparency, support reserves, strengthen local value addition and avoid fiscal risks, it could become a major institutional pillar in Ghana’s economic transformation. If governance weakens, it could quickly become another contested state intervention.
That is why this dispute matters. It is not only about whether GoldBod made a profit. It is about whether Ghana can turn its gold wealth into disciplined national strength rather than another source of political controversy.
