New official figures from the Bank of Ghana (BoG) have confirmed that the country’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) and its associated Gold-for-Reserves (G4R) mechanism ran up net financial losses totalling more than GH¢7 billion between 2022 and 2024, directly contradicting assertions by the NPP Minority Caucus that there were no losses in previous years.
The disclosures, released in response to a Right to Information (RTI) request, included detailed audited data showing a sharp escalation in net losses as the programme expanded.
▪︎ Steep Year-on-Year Losses
■ According to the BoG’s breakdown:
● 2022: Net losses of GH¢74.44 million despite modest gold purchase volumes.
● 2023: Losses jumped to GH¢1.37 billion, driven by both Gold-for-Oil (G4O) and Gold-for-Reserves transactions.
● 2024: Losses ballooned to GH¢5.66 billion as the programme scaled up.
The total for the three-year period thus exceeds GH¢7.1 billion, with 2025 figures still awaiting external audit confirmation.
■ Strategic Defence and Political Pushback
In defending the programmes, BoG officials emphasised the strategic role of the DGPP/G4R in bolstering foreign exchange reserves, tempering exchange rate volatility and supporting macroeconomic stability. The central bank has described the losses largely as accounting effects tied to valuation and transfer pricing mechanisms rather than pure cash deficits.
However, the revelations have sparked intensified scrutiny from opposition lawmakers. During a heated session before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), BoG Governor Dr Johnson Asiama was pressed on the implications of the losses and the transparency of the reporting.
■ Divergent Views on Impact and Interpretation
The controversy illustrates a widening divide in how government policy and economic stewardship are assessed. Supporters argue the gold initiatives are vital tools for managing external sector pressures and rebuilding reserves after years of currency turbulence. Critics counter that sustained losses even if strategic demand stronger oversight, clearer cost-benefit analysis, and enhanced accountability.
As debate unfolds, policymakers and analysts alike face pressure to clarify whether the financial costs are justified by anti-smuggling outcomes, reserve accumulation, and stabilisation effects or whether alternative mechanisms might better serve Ghana’s long-term economic interests.
Author: Edem Latsu Nukafu
Edem Latsu Nukafu, a passionate communications professional dedicated to public relations, journalism, media strategy, and content development. He holds both a Diploma and Bachelor of Arts Degree in Communication Studies (Public Relations) from the University of Media, Arts and Communication – UniMAC-IJ. A member of Ghana Journalists Association (GJA).
