Co-Chair of the Ghana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GHEITI), Dr Emmanuel Steve Asare Manteaw, says the financial losses recorded by the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) must be viewed within the context of the highly competitive gold market it entered.

The policy analyst argues that GoldBod had to offer better prices to Ghanaian miners because foreign buyers, particularly Indians and Chinese, already had established relationships with them.

Dr Manteaw said these foreign players were also providing resources and equipment to miners in exchange for gold.

“The Indians were providing money, the Chinese were providing equipment, the Turkish, they were all providing resources for Ghanaian miners in exchange for the gold,” he said.

According to him, GoldBod faced the difficult task of winning over miners who were already connected to these foreign buyers.

“Now, you set up a gold board, and you want the gold board to win the market. How did they do that?” he asked.

He said GoldBod had not offered additional support to miners and therefore had to compete primarily on price.

“They’ve not offered any support to the miners. The only way they can do that is to ensure that they offer a better price,” he said.

Dr Manteaw explained that offering higher prices came with costs that GoldBod could not fully recover through its transactions.

“But as you offer a better price, that’s a cost that you cannot recover through your transactions,” he said.

He said foreign buyers were purchasing Ghanaian gold at a discount, while GoldBod was buying at market price.

“For the Indians, the Chinese, and the foreigners, they were actually buying their gold at a discount. Gold Board was buying at market price, in fact, using the forex rate, I mean the forex bureau rate, which was far higher than the Bank of Ghana rate,” he said.

He believes this created an uncovered cost within GoldBod’s transactions.

“And so you find that there is a certain uncovered cost in the transactions, but it was necessary for them to win the Ghanaian miners and to get them to sell to Gold Board,” he said.

Dr Manteaw also rejected suggestions that GoldBod’s reported losses should be treated as an unprecedented development.

He said Ghana had recorded losses from gold-related purchasing programmes in previous years.

“We make it look like this is the first time Ghana is making losses in its gold purchase program. I’ve looked at the data. 2022, we made a loss. In 2023, 2024, and 2025, we’ve made losses all those years. Why didn’t that become a problem?” he asked.

He cited 2024 as an example, saying Ghana recorded a total loss of ¢5.7 billion from Gold for Oil and domestic gold purchases for reserves.

“So let’s say, for instance, in 2024, we made a total loss of ¢5.7 billion. $1.8 billion from Gold for Oil and then $3.8 billion from our domestic gold for reserves, total of $5.7 billion,” he said.

Dr Manteaw said the losses should instead be assessed against the foreign exchange generated and the wider economic impact.

“You need to look at the relativity. How much did you spend to bring in what, and what has been the impact?” he said.

He argued that the wider economic benefits outweigh the cost.

“The impact, the economy-wide impact for me, exceeds the cost,” he said.

Dr Manteaw said that improved foreign exchange stability, lower import costs, and lower inflation and interest rates could create conditions for economic growth.

“Oh yes. You have forex stability, so a business can plan properly. Your imports have gone down. I mean, in terms of cost of your imports, have gone down,” he said.

“Now, again, you have low inflation, you have low interest rates, and all these get to establish the foundation for economic growth,” he added.

He maintained that GoldBod’s losses must be understood in the context of the strategic challenge it faced when entering Ghana’s gold market.

“So, we need to actually just situate the conversation within the context in which Gold Board found itself when it was given the mandate to regulate gold trade,” he said.