By Boakye Stephen Kumasi, Ghana | Reporting for Ghanaian News Canada
Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board, Sammy Gyamfi, has rejected claims that GoldBod is financially dependent on the state, insisting that the institution generates revenue through legitimate services provided to clients.
Speaking on Newsfile on JoyNews on Saturday, August 22, Mr Gyamfi said GoldBod’s fees are approved by Parliament and are paid by individuals and businesses accessing services provided by the institution.
He rejected the characterisation of GoldBod as an institution that extracts money from the state without providing corresponding services.
Mr Gyamfi explained that GoldBod currently issues licences to more than 1,000 operators, with the relevant statutory fees attached to those licences.
He compared GoldBod’s fee structure to charges imposed by other public institutions for services such as company registration.
According to him, revenue generated by GoldBod ultimately belongs to the state.
He also stated that GoldBod does not exercise unrestricted control over its finances and requires approval from the Ministry of Finance before opening a bank account.
Mr Gyamfi argued that the arrangement demonstrates that GoldBod’s financial activities remain subject to government oversight.
His comments come amid controversy surrounding the financial performance of GoldBod and claims of losses associated with Ghana’s domestic gold purchasing programme.
Mr Gyamfi maintained that the losses cited by the International Monetary Fund relate to Bank of Ghana operations before responsibility for the programme was formally transferred to GoldBod.
Commentary
The GoldBod debate requires careful separation of three different questions: revenue, expenditure and policy-related losses.
An institution can generate revenue and still operate within a broader government programme that produces costs or losses elsewhere.
Therefore, the fact that GoldBod collects statutory fees does not by itself settle the wider question of whether Ghana’s gold-purchasing strategy is economically beneficial.
Similarly, claims of losses should be properly attributed to the institution or programme responsible for them.
This is where public debate must move beyond political rhetoric and into accounting evidence.
If GoldBod says it is profitable, the public should be able to examine the audited accounts and understand exactly how that profitability was achieved.
If critics claim that the gold-for-reserves programme generated substantial losses, they should identify the relevant financial statements, transactions and accounting treatment supporting that conclusion.
The crucial question is not simply “Who is right?”
The question is:
What exactly does each financial figure represent?
GoldBod’s assertion that its fees are legally approved is also important, but parliamentary approval of a fee does not automatically establish that every aspect of an institution’s operations is efficient or economically optimal.
Public institutions must remain accountable for both the revenue they generate and the resources they consume.
The government should therefore publish clear and independently verifiable information separating:
- GoldBod’s own revenues and expenditures;
- the cost of domestic gold purchases;
- foreign-exchange effects;
- Bank of Ghana-related transactions;
- gains or losses from gold transactions;
- financing costs; and
- the impact of the programme on Ghana’s reserves.
Without that separation, political arguments will continue to produce competing numbers that ordinary Ghanaians struggle to reconcile.
The country does not need louder arguments.
It needs clearer accounts.
