The Majority in Parliament has pushed back against the Minority's claims that the Bank of Ghana (BoG)’s GH¢14.61 billion paid to commercial banks in 2025 constituted a transfer of public wealth to private banks.

The Minority had argued that banks made record profits by holding Bank of Ghana bills instead of lending to the private sector.

It said the development reduced credit to businesses, weakened economic activity and worsened unemployment.

But Atta Issah, Sagnarigu MP and a member of Parliament’s Finance Committee, said that interpretation “simplifies a complex monetary policy process and misrepresents both the purpose and impact of these payments.”

The debate follows scrutiny of the Bank of Ghana’s audited accounts. The Minority linked policy changes, liquidity release, open market operations and bank profits.

But Mr Issah said that the connection does not appear in the audited statements.

“First, there is no evidence in the audited accounts supporting the claimed causal chain,” he said.

He argued that Note 35 reports the stock of sterilisation instruments while Note 10 reports the interest cost. Neither, he said, links the increase to a single policy change or reserve requirement adjustments.

“The explanation being offered is imposed, not derived from the audited record,” he stated.

He also rejected the description of the payments as a “wealth transfer.”

“Interest paid on central bank instruments is not a transfer. It is the mechanism through which monetary policy operates,” he said.

According to him, open market operations are used to “absorb excess liquidity,” “control inflation”, and “anchor interest rates.”

He said banks receive interest because they provide liquidity back to the central bank under those instruments.

“This is how modern monetary systems function,” he added.

On claims that banks enjoyed “risk-free profits,” Mr Issah said the argument was “misleading.”

“Banks operate within a regulated system. Their participation in central bank instruments reflects prevailing policy conditions,” he said.

He noted that when interest rates are high, returns on central bank and government instruments rise, lending rates also increase, and credit demand can weaken.

“This is a known feature of tight monetary policy,” he said.

Mr Issah also dismissed the suggestion that weaker private sector credit was driven solely by central bank operations.

“The slowdown in credit growth cannot be attributed solely to central bank operations,” he said, pointing instead to “high interest rates,” “borrower risk,” “macroeconomic uncertainty”, and “balance sheet adjustments within banks.”

He argued that the broader economic trade-off cannot be ignored.

“Without liquidity control, inflation would remain elevated, purchasing power would erode, and economic instability would worsen,” he said.

“High inflation imposes a far greater cost on households than sterilisation expenses. Stabilisation is not optional. It is necessary.”

He said the audited statements showed “no evidence” of “policy distortion for private gain,” “improper allocation of resources”, or “lack of transparency.”

“The GH¢14.61 billion reflects the cost of stabilising liquidity in a high-inflation environment. It is a function of policy rates and system-wide conditions. It is not evidence of mismanagement. It is the cost of restoring stability,” he said.

“And without stability, there is no foundation for growth, jobs, or sustainable lending.”