Vice President of IMANI Africa, Bright Simons, has shed light on Ghana’s controversial Gold-for-Oil programme, explaining how its conception and execution deviated from sound economic logic and ultimately resulted in financial losses to the state.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, October 4, 2025, Mr. Simons provided a detailed analysis of how the policy was designed to stabilise the Cedi and reduce pressure on Ghana’s foreign reserves, but instead created inefficiencies that warrant further scrutiny and possible prosecution.

He explained that Ghana’s fuel consumption has been rising sharply over the years, yet weak industrial policy has prevented the country from refining its own crude oil.

Despite having two major refineries, neither operates at full capacity, forcing Ghana to spend between $250 million and $400 million monthly importing refined fuel.

He said this dependency created pressure on the local currency, prompting government officials in 2021 and 2022 to propose the Gold-for-Oil scheme as an innovative alternative.

The idea, he explained, was to use domestically purchased gold, paid for in Cedis, to acquire oil directly, bypassing the need for dollars and thereby easing pressure on the Cedi.

“The logic was that since we mine gold locally and can buy it in Cedis, we could use the gold to acquire oil without demanding dollars. The expectation was that this would moderate pressure on the currency,” he explained.

However, Mr. Simons noted that the model only makes sense if the gold-for-oil barter produces a better rate than selling gold for dollars and then buying oil with those dollars, something that, he argued, was never economically justified.

“The barter model would only make sense if you could show that trading gold directly for oil gives you a more favourable rate than selling gold for dollars and using those dollars to buy oil. That was never demonstrated,” he said.

He stated that the flawed implementation of the policy, coupled with poor oversight and lack of transparency, contributed to inefficiencies and financial losses that must now be examined.

“The programme’s structure and execution created conditions for losses that could have been avoided. These are material losses to the state that deserve investigation,” he stressed.