Tano North Member of Parliament (MP) and Deputy Ranking Member of Parliament’s Finance Committee Dr Gideon Boako has questioned whether moving domestic gold-purchase financing away from the Bank of Ghana has eliminated the financial risks associated with Ghana’s gold strategy or simply transferred them to another part of the public sector.
Dr Boako raised the concerns in a write-up issued on Sunday, September 27, in which he assessed the implications of the July 2026 reform that shifted responsibility for domestic gold purchases from the Bank of Ghana to GoldBod.
Under the new arrangement, GoldBod increasingly relies on commercial banks and private off-takers for financing.
He acknowledged that separating monetary policy from commercial gold-purchasing operations could be institutionally healthier, particularly because the central bank should not indefinitely carry the risks of what is essentially a commercial activity.
However, he cautioned that moving the financing away from the Bank of Ghana did not necessarily mean that the economic cost had disappeared.
“The key questions should therefore include: How much does GoldBod pay for gold? What are its financing costs? What are its margins? How much does it spend on operations and exports?” Dr Boako asked in the write-up.
He further questioned who would ultimately bear the risk if the economics of the programme deteriorated.
According to him, Ghana must ensure that fiscal risks are not merely transferred from the central bank to another public institution.
He said the new GoldBod model would ultimately have to demonstrate that it could generate foreign exchange sustainably while keeping financing costs, operational risks and potential fiscal liabilities transparent.
The broader test, he added, would be whether Ghana had genuinely strengthened its external-sector architecture rather than simply changing the institutional location of its gold strategy.