The reported $214 million loss incurred by the Bank of Ghana (BoG) under its Gold-for-Reserves programme has ignited a fervent public debate, drawing strong reactions from various stakeholders including the Minority in Parliament and the Institute for Energy Policies and Research (INSTEPR). This controversy raises significant questions about accountability, transparency, and environmental governance, prompting calls for urgent and uncompromising scrutiny in the interest of the Ghanaian people.

Addressing journalists in Accra on Monday, December 29, the Minority in Parliament, represented by Ofoase Ayirebi MP, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, demanded a bipartisan parliamentary ad-hoc investigation. The Minority asserted that the Gold-for-Reserves initiative, intended to bolster Ghana’s foreign reserves and stabilize the cedi, has instead become shrouded in opacity, with troubling questions concerning pricing, intermediaries, and oversight. They outlined a four-point set of demands: the establishment of a Parliamentary Ad-hoc Investigative Committee empowered to subpoena all relevant contracts, licences, and intermediaries, including the alleged "Bawa-Rock monopoly"; full national disclosure from both the Bank of Ghana and GoldBod regarding fee structures, pricing formulas, aggregator selection criteria, and foreign-exchange arrangements; emergency environmental measures such as suspending mining permits in forest reserves and introducing blockchain-based traceability for gold purchases; and strict accountability for the Governor of the Bank of Ghana and the Chief Executive Officer of GoldBod, with criminal prosecutions and fund recovery if negligence or corruption is established. The Minority framed this issue as a national crisis, transcending partisan politics, urging citizens to speak out in defense of the country’s patrimony.

However, INSTEPR offered a contrasting perspective, attributing the reported GH¢2.4 billion losses incurred by the BoG under its gold purchase programme primarily to structural and operational weaknesses rather than political interference or corruption. In a rejoinder signed by its Executive Director, Kwadwo N. Poku, INSTEPR stated that the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) disclosure of these losses over nine months did not surprise observers, given the institute’s prior warnings. They explained that previous iterations of the gold purchase programme had recorded similar losses even before GoldBod’s establishment, largely due to exchange rate differentials and the structure of local gold trading. Under the current arrangement, BoG provides funds to GoldBod, which, through registered agents, purchases gold from small-scale miners. These agents buy gold at international market rates, converted into cedis using negotiated exchange rates that often diverge from the BoG’s internal rates, also factoring in their margins and refining costs.

INSTEPR further criticized the BoG’s failure to learn from previous losses recorded in 2023 and 2024, citing a 2025 letter where the Bank acknowledged GH¢1.8 billion in losses from gold transactions due to exchange rate differentials. The institute dismissed attempts by some groups to link these losses primarily to the Gold for Oil (G4O) initiative, noting that only a fraction of the GH¢2.1 billion loss in 2024 was tied to oil transactions. While other state entities like PMMC and BOST recorded profits in 2024, INSTEPR highlighted that GoldBod operates without financial risk, earning a commission regardless of the BoG’s profit or loss. INSTEPR concluded that the losses do not signify corruption or lack of transparency in the Gold for Oil programme, but rather underscore the need for enhanced trading expertise and improved operational frameworks, urging the BoG to operate independently and engage experienced commodity trading institutions.

A third perspective emerged, refuting the notion that the Cedi’s recent resilience is a result of environmental degradation or a "poisoned chalice." This viewpoint strongly asserts that the Cedi is not stable because rivers are polluted, but rather because economic logic is clear, and the nation’s structural pillars are being rebuilt. It challenges the argument that illegal mining was encouraged for currency strength, contrasting it with the perceived failure of the previous administration’s “Gold for Oil” scheme. The critics who suggest a sinister correlation between the Bank of Ghana’s success and environmental loss, or that Goldbod exists to launder environmental crime proceeds, are accused of presenting a false choice. The argument posits that leveraging mineral sovereign wealth while simultaneously combating illegal mining is achievable and necessary, rather than admitting a total paralysis of the state. Using gold to back a currency is seen as fiscal prudence, not environmental neglect, and the question of whether a state can legitimately buy its own gold from regulated small-scale miners is affirmed.

This perspective emphasizes that the Cedi’s stability stems from fundamental laws of supply and demand and structural shifts that have addressed the demand for the U.S. Dollar. A crucial factor highlighted is the revitalization of the Tema Oil Refinery (TOR). For decades, the demand for Dollars to import refined fuel drained national reserves. By revitalizing TOR and streamlining its internal revenue, the current leadership is credited with cutting this dependency. When TOR demands fewer Dollars, the Cedi strengthens, signifying a production-driven transformation. This narrative portrays the Cedi’s recovery not as a trade-off between clean rivers and a strong economy, but as a demonstration of technical expertise at the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Ghana, prioritizing reserves over rhetoric.

The proponents of this view commend the architects of this recovery at TOR, Goldbod, and the Bank of Ghana, arguing that their efforts have demonstrated that when the state focuses on rebuilding, the Cedi not only survives but commands respect. While acknowledging the ongoing need for transparency and public accountability, the first year of this approach is described as an undeniable pivot toward dignity. The ultimate message is a call to reject cynicism, affirming that a nation can simultaneously protect its water resources and its financial stability, ensuring that while the Cedi is back, the rivers will follow.