GoldBod losses are transaction costs, not failure - Dr Manteaw

Policy analyst and Co-Chair of the Ghana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GHEITI), Dr Emmanuel Steve Asare Manteaw, has defended losses recorded under the Ghana Gold Board’s (GoldBod) domestic gold purchase programme, arguing that the figures should be assessed against the wider economic benefits of the initiative.

GoldBod’s domestic gold purchase programme is aimed at increasing the state’s participation in the gold trade and boosting foreign exchange inflows.

Ghana's gold purchase losses date back to 2022 - Dr Steve Manteaw

Speaking on JoyNews on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, Dr Manteaw criticised what he described as an excessive focus on GoldBod’s reported losses, insisting that Ghana had recorded losses from gold purchase programmes in previous years without attracting similar scrutiny.

“We make it look like this is the first time Ghana is making losses in its gold purchase programme. I’ve looked at the data. In 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 about GH¢5.7 billion from the Gold-for-Oil programme and domestic gold purchases for reserves.

Dr Manteaw argued that the focus should instead be on the amount of foreign exchange generated through the transactions and their broader impact on 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.

According to him, the reported losses should be understood as transaction costs rather than viewed in isolation as evidence of financial failure.

“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,” he added.

He said any assessment of GoldBod should consider how much was spent against what the programme has brought into the economy, particularly in terms of foreign exchange.

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

Dr Manteaw maintained that the broader economic impact of the programme could outweigh its associated costs.

He said the foreign exchange stability supported by the programme could help businesses plan more effectively, reduce import costs and create conditions for lower inflation and interest rates.

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

Dr Manteaw nevertheless acknowledged concerns over the sustainability of GoldBod recording losses of about US$1.7 billion but said the circumstances under which the institution entered the gold market should be considered.

According to him, Indian, Chinese and Turkish buyers already had established relationships with Ghanaian miners and were providing financing and equipment 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 explained.

He said GoldBod had to offer competitive prices to attract miners away from these established foreign buyers, creating costs that could not immediately be recovered through its transactions.

“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,” Dr Manteaw said.

He therefore urged critics to assess GoldBod’s reported losses alongside the programme’s contribution to foreign exchange reserves, exchange-rate stability and the broader economy.

ANAS/MA

Ghana's recovery due to superior economic management - Ato Forson