Gold Bod: Let Parliament Cross Examine the Evidence - Seth K. Awuku

A medical doctor friend of mine, also a member of our intellectual think tank platform in Takoradi, called me about the increasingly heated Sammy Gyamfi, Afenyo Markin exchange.

His concern was simple, the argument was becoming personal.

I wondered and pondered: Are we still debating the economics of GoldBod, or have the personalities begun to overshadow the substance?

It is a fair question.

Somewhere between the US$1.7 billion, the press conferences, the accusations and the “extortionist” charge, the numbers, the very numbers on which the controversy rests, appear to have been pushed into the background.

And that would be a curious outcome.

We began with billions.

We now seem to be arguing about insults.

But insults do not balance books. Figures do.

Afenyo Markin, speaking on Newsfile with Samson Lardy Anyenini, has also counselled against rushing to court over the allegations against him, observing that even Jesus Christ was accused but did not rush.

There is something rather amusing, even if unintended, about invoking Christ in a political dispute.

But beneath the humour lies a sensible point.

There is no need to rush.

If the allegation against Afenyo Markin is defamatory, the courts remain available to him. But the much larger GoldBod question requires something different, a public examination of the evidence.

Let the courts wait.

Let Parliament work.

Let Parliament Cross Examine Everyone

The Minority has a right to question Government.

GoldBod has a right to defend itself.

The IMF has a right to state its assessment.

Economists have a right to interpret the figures.

But Parliament has something more important, the responsibility to establish the facts.

This is where a purposive and contextual approach to interpretation becomes useful.

Justice Dennis Adjei, in his treatment of the Modern Purposive Approach to Interpretation, emphasises the importance of context and purpose rather than simply attaching a conclusion to isolated words or phrases.

That principle is particularly relevant here.

The question is not merely whether US$1.7 billion appears somewhere in an IMF assessment.

The question is:

What exactly does the figure represent?

How was it calculated?

Who incurred it?

Who bears the economic cost?

Is it a GoldBod loss?

A Bank of Ghana loss?

A policy cost?

A valuation effect?

Or a cost arising from the wider Domestic Gold Purchase Programme?

And, critically, where does the IMF attribute that loss specifically to GoldBod as an institution?

These questions cannot properly be answered through competing press conferences.

They require evidence.

Bring Everyone to the Table

Let Parliament invite Sammy Gyamfi and the management of GoldBod to appear before the appropriate committee with the audited accounts and supporting documentation.

Let them explain the reported GH¢5.55 billion revenue, GH¢109.6 million expenditure and GH¢5.44 billion surplus cited by the Institute of Fiscal Policy Governance from GoldBod’s audited 2025 financial statements.

Then let Parliament invite the Institute of Fiscal Policy Governance.

Let it explain its analysis, methodology and conclusions.

Let Prof. Ebo Turkson, Associate Professor of Development Economics at the University of Ghana appear and explain his economic interpretation of the alleged US$1.7 billion loss.

Let the Bank of Ghana explain the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, its financing, transactions and financial consequences.

And, yes, let Parliament invite the IMF.

If the IMF assessment is central to the allegation, surely the institution should be given the opportunity to explain its own numbers.

Put the report before the Committee.

Ask the questions.

Cross examine the answers.

Test the assumptions.

Reconcile the competing figures.

And establish exactly where responsibility lies.

Enough of the Political Theatre

If Afenyo Markin is right, let Parliament establish it.

If GoldBod is right, let Parliament establish that too.

If the IMF assessment has been misunderstood, let the IMF clarify it.

If the Institute of Fiscal Policy Governance or any economist has interpreted the accounts incorrectly, let that also be demonstrated.

That is what evidence based public discourse should look like.

Not accusation against accusation.

Not insult against insult.

Not politician against public official.

Evidence against evidence.

There is nothing wrong with robust political disagreement. Indeed, democracy requires it.

But when billions of Ghana cedis are involved, Parliament should be less interested in who won the press conference and more interested in who can explain the numbers.

My medical friend may therefore have identified the real danger.

We may be allowing personalities to eclipse the substance.

Let us reverse that.

Bring GoldBod. Bring the Institute. Bring Prof. Turkson. Bring the Bank of Ghana. Bring the IMF.

Put the documents on the table.

Cross examine the evidence.

Interpret the figures in their proper context.

Then tell the Ghanaian people what the GH¢22 billion really represents.

Because at the end of the day, the question is not who shouted louder.

It is not who insulted whom.

It is not even who won the political exchange.

The question is where the money went, who bears the cost, and what Ghana received in return.

We began with billions.

Let us end with the books.

Facts first. Context and interpretation afterwards. Verdict last.

Seth K. Awuku

Principal, Sovereign Advisory Ltd.