GoldBod, the IMF programme debate, and the question of ‘losses

Recent discussions surrounding GoldBod, the Ghana Gold Board's gold purchase program, have intensified alongside the country's engagement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its goal of exiting the programme. Critics from the opposition, particularly the New Patriotic Party (NPP), argue that GoldBod has incurred significant losses and that discrepancies in reported figures raise concerns.

However, the debate often revolves around how "losses" are measured, the timeframes covered by different disclosures, and whether programme-level figures are directly comparable with GoldBod's audited corporate results.

The Auditor-General's report on GoldBod never suggested that the Board made substantial losses. Instead, the minority insists that the program has incurred losses, a claim that critics argue is misleading when comparing different financial figures. For example, a reported $214 million is compared to a later figure of $1.7 billion, raising questions about whether the amounts are presented with the same scope, period, and definition of "loss."

GoldBod's audited 2025 accounts reveal a different story. The Board reported about GH¢970.8 million in non-tax revenue and an operational surplus of roughly GH¢909.7 million. Even when accounting for a GH¢4.55 billion government grant included in the total surplus of GH¢5.44 billion, GoldBod's operational performance demonstrates that it is not a financial drain on the public purse.

It generates revenue, pays miners promptly, and remits resources that support the national budget. Importantly, the Auditor-General's report did not implicate GoldBod in financial mismanagement or losses, suggesting that the Board has maintained integrity in its corporate operations.

The broader conversation about the gold purchase programme also touches on its impact on Ghana's external reserves and exchange rate stability. The IMF acknowledged that the program contributed to building Ghana's gross international reserves ahead of schedule, which was one of its key objectives. While the IMF flagged structural risks around the design of the program and the exposure it created for the Central Bank, it is crucial to distinguish these risks from allegations of operational losses by GoldBod itself.

The timing of the debate aligns with Ghana's announcement of a clear roadmap to exit the IMF program. This has led to claims that the IMF's reservations about the program's design are being weaponized by the opposition to discredit a flagship economic initiative. However, a more nuanced perspective reveals that a program like GoldBod can support reserves and stabilize the cedi while requiring reforms to its structure. This evolution is not a failure but a necessary step in policy development.