A significant portion of the reported US$1.7 billion loss associated with the Bank of Ghana’s (BoG) Domestic Gold Purchase Programme involving the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) is attributable to accounting and valuation treatment rather than an actual loss to the economy, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has said.

Director of Research at the IEA, Professor Alexander Bilson-Darku, said the figure needed to be properly disaggregated before conclusions were drawn about the financial implications of the gold purchase programme.

Speaking at the IEA’s assessment of the 2026 mid-year budget review in Accra on Wednesday, Prof. Bilson-Darku said the first two components of the reported loss represented payments made by the central bank to GoldBod for gold purchased and exported on behalf of the Bank of Ghana.

“The first two sources of the loss were money that the central bank paid to Gold Board on behalf of buying and exporting the gold on its behalf. So they actually constitute revenue to the Gold Board. I don't understand why somebody would call revenue as a loss,” he said.

He explained that while the payments constituted a cost on the books of the central bank, the corresponding revenue accrued to another state institution, meaning that the transactions should not automatically be interpreted as a loss to the state as a whole.

“So from the Gold Board perspective, those two components of the loss are the ones. Okay? This is a cost to the central bank who paid it to them,” he said.

‘Almost 90%’ valuation effect

Prof. Bilson-Darku identified the third component as the most significant element of the US$1.7 billion figure, saying it accounted for almost 90 per cent of the reported amount.

According to him, that component arose largely from the valuation method used by the Bank of Ghana when recording the transactions in its books.

“The third one, the most significant, the one that constitutes almost 90 % of this law, the 1.7 billion, was simply due to valuation technique,” he said.

He illustrated the issue using an exchange-rate scenario in which GoldBod purchased gold on behalf of the central bank at a particular cedi-to-dollar rate and the proceeds were subsequently converted into cedis on the Bank of Ghana’s books.

He said central banks typically use reference rates for accounting purposes, which could differ from prevailing foreign exchange rates.

“So when this money comes in, the central bank need to convert that into CDs in its books. And if it converts the dollars using lower rates, they could use higher rates. That would reflect as a loss,” he explained.

Prof. Bilson-Darku consequently cautioned against treating the reported valuation difference as an equivalent cash loss to Ghana.

“So it is merely book accounting issue, but not a significant loss to the nation,” he stated.

‘Left hand giving to right hand’

The IEA research director said the interpretation of the first two components also required a broader view of the relationship between the Bank of Ghana and GoldBod, both of which are state institutions.

He said the money paid by the central bank to GoldBod could represent a cost on one institution’s books while simultaneously appearing as revenue or a gain on the books of the other.

“And we need to also be extremely careful, especially in accounting and economics. You need to be very careful,” he cautioned.

He explained that, from the perspective of the state as a whole, the transactions involved one government institution transferring funds to another.

“The first two components that we talked about. Actually, if you look deep into it, it is one government agency paying another government agency same amount,” he said.

“To the government, its monetary authority, which is the central bank, has made dollars. To the government, its gold board has made a gain. Plus or minus, there's no cost. It is left-hand giving to the right hand,” he added.

His comments come amid heightened public and political scrutiny of the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme and the reported US$1.7 billion loss recorded in connection with the programme.

The controversy has centred on whether the figure represents a genuine financial loss to the state or reflects, in significant part, accounting treatment, valuation differences and transactions between public institutions.

Prof. Bilson-Darku’s assessment therefore underscored the need for the reported figure to be broken down into its constituent components before its impact on public finances and the wider economy is determined.