Policy analyst and Co-Chair of the Ghana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GHEITI), Dr Emmanuel Steve Asare Manteaw, has challenged criticism of losses recorded under the Ghana Gold Board’s (GoldBod) domestic gold purchase programme.

He says the debate must consider the programme's wider economic benefits rather than treating the reported losses as an unprecedented development.

Dr Manteaw argues that Ghana has incurred losses from gold purchase programmes in previous years, but those losses did not attract the same level of concern.

“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 incurred losses each year. Why didn’t that become a problem?” he asked.

He cited 2024 as an example, saying Ghana recorded a combined 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.

According to Dr Manteaw, Ghana’s gold export revenue that year was significantly lower than the value of the transactions.

“How much revenue, gold export revenue, did we bring in? A mere $4 billion,” he said.

He believes the reported GoldBod losses should instead be viewed as transaction costs incurred to secure substantial foreign exchange for the economy.

“And so if you had to incur a loss of $1.7 billion to bring in $10 billion, that for me shouldn’t be a problem,” he said.

“It means that we should accept that incurring losses, what we call losses, for me, they are transaction costs, and all the governments over the years have been incurring transaction costs, and that has not become a problem.”

Dr Manteaw said the assessment should focus on what Ghana spent compared with what it gained from the programme.

“So why this time around do we treat GoldBoard as if it is the first time we are making losses?” he asked.

He said the foreign exchange brought into the formal economy and its wider impact must also be considered.

“We don’t even consider the quantum of forex that GoldBoard has brought in, and so you need to look at the relativity, relativity. How much did you spend to bring in what, and what has been the impact?” he said.

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

Dr Manteaw said the benefits include greater foreign exchange stability, lower import costs, lower inflation and lower interest rates.

“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.

He added that the stability could also support investment in machinery and help businesses take advantage of the government’s 24-hour economy policy.

“Now, that gives you the opportunity if you use incentives to get people to import machinery, so that your 24-hour economy can benefit from the stability,” he said.

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

Dr Manteaw, however, acknowledged concerns about the sustainability of losing $1.7 billion through gold transactions.

He said GoldBod initially faced the challenge of breaking into an established gold market dominated by foreign buyers with long-standing relationships with Ghanaian miners.

“The context at the time when GoldBoard was given the mandate to do what it’s doing now, GoldBoard needed to penetrate the market,” he said.

He explained that Indian, Chinese and Turkish buyers were already providing financing 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.

Dr Manteaw said GoldBod therefore had to offer better prices to attract miners.

“The only way they can do that is to ensure that they offer a better price. But as you offer a better price, that’s a cost that you cannot recover through your transactions,” he said.

He said GoldBod was buying at market prices, while some foreign buyers were purchasing 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 said the resulting uncovered cost should be considered in light of the circumstances under which GoldBod entered the market.

“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.

“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.”