Central Bank Losses Spark IMF Accountability Row
Ghana’s policy debate over the cost of economic stabilisation has intensified after a leading think tank questioned whether the International Monetary Fund bears responsibility for the Bank of Ghana’s deepening financial losses.
The Institute of Economic Research and Public Policy, led by Professor Isaac Boidi, has called for a transparent audit of policy decisions undertaken during the country’s $3bn IMF-supported programme, arguing that the central bank’s latest figures raise concerns about both oversight and accountability.
The BoG reported an operating loss of GH¢34.9bn for 2025, including other comprehensive income, sharply higher than the GH¢9.49bn loss recorded a year earlier. Officials have characterised the losses as a necessary cost of restoring macroeconomic stability following recent fiscal and currency pressures.
But Professor Boidi challenged that narrative, warning of what he described as a shift “from denial to justification” within official communication. He argued that such losses cannot be dismissed without a clear explanation of the policy trade-offs that produced them.
At the centre of the debate is the IMF’s role in Ghana’s stabilisation programme. While the Fund is typically involved in shaping monetary and fiscal frameworks, the think tank questioned whether it merely endorsed policy choices that contributed to the losses or raised concerns privately without public disclosure.
The institute outlined four key questions for policymakers and the IMF: whether central bank losses are a common feature of IMF-backed programmes; under what conditions such losses are deemed acceptable; what specific factors drove Ghana’s 2025 outcome in the absence of a major economic shock; and what accountability mechanisms apply when policy decisions result in large financial deficits.
The intervention adds to growing scrutiny of Ghana’s reform path, as authorities balance fiscal consolidation with currency stabilisation and inflation control. Analysts note that central bank losses can arise from exchange rate interventions, high interest costs on sterilisation instruments, and legacy liabilities — but transparency around these drivers remains critical for maintaining policy credibility.
The think tank warned that without clearer answers, the credibility of the stabilisation programme itself could come under strain. It said it would formally petition the IMF to undertake a closer review of Ghana’s financial accounts, arguing that stronger oversight and public communication are essential to sustaining confidence in the reform agenda.
For investors and policymakers alike, the episode underscores a broader question: how far financial stability can be pursued at the expense of central bank balance sheets — and who ultimately bears responsibility when the costs mount.
