The Governor of the Bank of Ghana (BoG), Dr. Johnson Pandit Asiama, has offered a vigorous defence of the nation’s domestic gold purchase initiatives, revealing that the strategic move was a deliberate choice birthed during a period of extreme economic peril.

Delivering remarks at the opening of the University of Ghana’s 77th Annual New Year School and Conference (ANYSC) on Tuesday, January 6, 2026, Dr. Asiama addressed the intense national scrutiny surrounding the gold programme.

He asserted that the initiative's inception was not a matter of routine policy but a vital intervention for a nation under siege.

Dr. Asiama provided a rare look back at the "stress and transition" that necessitated the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP).

He noted that the policy was forged at a time when Ghana’s traditional economic defences were failing.

“As you will remember, the domestic gold purchase programme was introduced at a moment of acute vulnerability, and this was when foreign exchange buffers became thin and confidence was fragile,” the Governor recalled.

He explained that the programme served a "clear purpose" of leveraging Ghana's natural endowments to strengthen reserves, stabilise the Cedi, and create the necessary fiscal space for recovery.

Judging by these objectives, he maintained that the programme has been a cornerstone of the country's recent stability.

While touting the programme's success in restoring market confidence, Dr. Asiama was candid about the fiscal toll it took on the central bank.

He acknowledged that the Bank of Ghana had to shoulder the "financial burden" of maintaining the Gold-for-Oil (G4O) and Gold-for-Reserves (G4R) frameworks to protect the wider economy.

“It is also important to be candid that this stability came at a cost,” he noted, referring to the setup of the DGPP.

“Indeed, that was a deliberate choice taken in the national interest.”

The Governor detailed significant policy pivots executed throughout 2025 to optimise the programme.

These included the cancellation of the G4O (Gold-for-Oil) scheme and the refinement of the G4R framework.

Key improvements highlighted include:

• Reduced Settlement Risk: Implementation of "payment before release" requirements.
• Improved Pricing: Reductions in discount agency charges to reflect market accuracy.
• Transparency: Introduction of a Gold FX option mechanism for more structured foreign exchange flows.
• Small-Scale Regulation: Strengthening governance and risk management within the artisanal mining segment.

Looking toward the 2026 fiscal year, Dr. Asiama argued that the responsibility for the programme must no longer rest on the BoG alone.

“Responsibility will be shared in such a way that sustainability does not rest on any single institution,” he insisted, calling for the programme to be anchored firmly within the broader Government of Ghana framework.

The Governor further encouraged informed debates and evidence-based analysis.

To facilitate this, he announced that the BoG, in collaboration with the Gold Board and the Ministry of Finance, will soon convene a focused policy workshop. This session will bring together experts and market practitioners to align Ghana's strategy with international best practices.

“In the past, year 2025 was about restoring confidence in the economy. Then the year 2026 must be about putting that confidence and judgement in the service of a more resilient, inclusive and competitive Ghanaian economy,” Dr. Asiama concluded.

His comments come amid public debate over reports that GoldBod, the state-linked gold trading entity, incurred losses amounting to US$214 million — claims that have been strongly denied by the government.

Meanwhile, critics such as Bright Simons, an Honorary Vice President of IMANI Africa, have pushed back against attempts to downplay the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) assessment of Ghana’s reported US$214 million losses linked to gold trading, insisting that the Fund has both the mandate and the right to describe the issue as “trading losses”.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, January 3, Mr Simons explained that the IMF’s conclusions stem from its surveillance role under Article IV consultations, which apply to all member countries, not only those on active IMF programmes.

“The IMF insists that we should call it trading losses. We did not use that term arbitrarily,” Simons said, stressing that IMF reviews are grounded in treaty obligations Ghana voluntarily signed up to as a member of the Bretton Woods institution.

According to him, the IMF has the right to assess how countries manage their economies and to publish its findings, provided the engagement with authorities is reasonable.

He rejected suggestions that the issue could be reduced to a mere administrative or accounting problem. “You cannot all of a sudden convert a trading loss into something that’s a purely administrative matter. A trading loss means it’s a commercial loss,” Mr Simons argued, adding that the IMF’s conclusions were based on careful examination of data and extensive engagement with Ghanaian authorities.

However, government officials have dismissed claims of losses at GoldBod.

Appearing on Newsfile the same day, Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi described reports of a US$214 million loss as “false and misleading”.

“Emphatically, no. GoldBod, even though it is not a profit-making public institution, has not made any losses,” Sammy Gyamfi stated.

He disclosed that GoldBod generated more than GH₵960 million in revenue in 2025, while its total expenditure stood at less than GH₵120 million, based on unaudited management accounts.

“From all indications, we are on course to declaring an income surplus,” he added.