Afenyo-Markin’s GoldBod Criticism Driven by Political Blackmail – Sammy Gyamfi

Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, has accused Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin of pursuing what he describes as a political campaign to discredit the institution rather than engaging in genuine public scrutiny of its operations.

Mr Gyamfi made the comments on Wednesday, August 19, 2026, during the Government Accountability Series, where he addressed concerns surrounding GoldBod’s performance, finances and operations.

The GoldBod CEO’s comments come after weeks of intense criticism from the Minority Leader over the financial implications of Ghana’s gold purchasing arrangements, particularly issues connected to the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP).

According to an assessment by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the programme recorded losses of approximately US$1.7 billion in 2025, a figure that has become a major point of contention between the government and the opposition.

Gyamfi accuses Afenyo-Markin of a smear campaign

Mr Gyamfi strongly rejected the suggestion that the criticism against GoldBod represents legitimate concerns about the institution’s performance.

He argued that Mr Afenyo-Markin’s continued attacks are intended to damage GoldBod’s reputation through what he described as false claims and political pressure.

According to the GoldBod CEO, the Minority Leader’s approach does not contribute meaningfully to the national conversation about Ghana’s gold sector.

Mr Gyamfi described the criticism as a “desperate smear campaign” driven by what he called political blackmail and an attempt to achieve selfish interests.

He further accused his critics of using allegations and repeated claims to create a negative perception of the institution.

“The Ghanaian people deserve serious public discourse founded on facts, evidence, truth, and not endless recycling of falsehoods in the hope that repetition will lend credibility to them and turn fiction to facts,” Mr Gyamfi said.

Afenyo-Markin maintains GoldBod must answer questions

The accusations from Mr Gyamfi come after Mr Afenyo-Markin intensified his criticism of GoldBod.

The Minority Leader has argued that his concerns are not motivated by personal or political considerations but by questions surrounding the financial performance of Ghana’s gold purchasing arrangements.

Mr Afenyo-Markin has specifically questioned the reported financial losses associated with the DGPP and has demanded greater accountability from GoldBod.

In a separate engagement on August 18, he rejected suggestions that the Minority’s criticism was politically motivated, insisting that the focus should remain on what he described as policy failure and institutional inefficiency.

He also argued that the IMF’s assessment of Ghana’s gold purchase programme was publicly available and should not simply be dismissed as a political argument from the opposition.

US$1.7 billion loss controversy

At the centre of the dispute is the reported US$1.7 billion loss connected to Ghana’s gold purchase programme.

The issue has generated significant political debate because GoldBod has become a central institution in the government’s strategy for managing Ghana’s gold resources and generating foreign exchange.

The Minority has questioned whether the programme represents value for money and whether the state has suffered substantial financial losses through the transactions.

Mr Gyamfi, however, has consistently disputed claims that GoldBod itself incurred such losses.

The GoldBod CEO has argued that the programme predates the establishment of GoldBod and that the financial results associated with earlier transactions should not automatically be attributed to the institution.

That distinction has become a major part of the ongoing political and economic debate.

Gyamfi challenges critics to provide evidence

Mr Gyamfi has insisted that discussions about GoldBod must be based on verifiable information rather than political rhetoric.

He argued that Ghanaians deserve a serious assessment of the institution’s performance and should be given facts that allow them to form their own conclusions.

The CEO also maintained that GoldBod would not be intimidated by what he described as attempts to pressure the institution into abandoning its position.

“Well, this time around they found the wrong target,” he said.

His comments signal that the dispute between the GoldBod leadership and the Minority is unlikely to end soon.

Afenyo-Markin says criticism is about accountability

Mr Afenyo-Markin, meanwhile, has maintained that the Minority’s role is to scrutinise government institutions and demand answers where public finances are concerned.

He has argued that criticism of GoldBod should not be interpreted as an attack on individuals.

In his view, the key question is whether policies implemented through GoldBod and the gold purchasing programme have resulted in financial losses to the state.

He has therefore urged the government to address the substance of the allegations instead of questioning the motives of those raising concerns.

Political battle over Ghana’s gold sector

The disagreement has now developed into one of the most prominent political debates surrounding Ghana’s gold sector.

Gold is one of Ghana’s most important sources of foreign exchange, and the government has placed GoldBod at the centre of efforts to increase the country’s earnings from the precious metal.

The institution has been tasked with playing a greater role in the purchase and trading of gold, particularly gold produced by artisanal and small-scale miners.

Government supporters argue that the new system can improve transparency, reduce gold smuggling and ensure that more foreign exchange from Ghana’s gold resources remains within the country.

The opposition, however, wants greater scrutiny of the financial arrangements surrounding the programme.

Government accountability under the spotlight

Mr Gyamfi’s appearance at the Government Accountability Series offered him an opportunity to defend GoldBod’s record directly before the public.

His comments also demonstrate how politically sensitive the institution has become.

With GoldBod responsible for a significant part of Ghana’s gold trading operations, questions about its financial performance have implications beyond partisan politics.

They touch directly on Ghana’s foreign-exchange reserves, the stability of the cedi, public finances and the country’s management of its natural resources.

The debate is far from over

The latest exchange between Sammy Gyamfi and Alexander Afenyo-Markin is unlikely to bring an end to the GoldBod controversy.

While the GoldBod CEO insists that the attacks against the institution are politically motivated and designed to damage its reputation, the Minority Leader maintains that the concerns are legitimate questions of financial accountability and policy performance.

The two sides therefore remain sharply divided over how the reported losses should be interpreted and whether GoldBod should be held responsible for them.

As Parliament and the wider public continue to scrutinise Ghana’s gold purchasing arrangements, the demand for clear financial information and independent verification is likely to remain strong.

For now, Mr Gyamfi says GoldBod will not be intimidated by the criticism, while Mr Afenyo-Markin has vowed that the Minority will continue to demand answers.

The dispute has ultimately placed a broader question before Ghanaians: Is the controversy surrounding GoldBod primarily a political battle, or are there genuine financial and policy concerns that require deeper scrutiny?

That question is likely to remain at the centre of the debate as Ghana continues to assess the performance and future direction of its gold sector.