The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) may have summoned the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, to answer questions surrounding the controversial losses associated with the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP), but the encounter offered the GoldBod boss an opportunity to demonstrate his command of the institution’s financial records and challenge the assumptions underpinning the controversy.
With a firm grasp of the figures and a clear distinction between GoldBod’s accounts and those of the Bank of Ghana (BoG), Mr Gyamfi mounted a spirited defence of the institution, pushing back against attempts to associate GoldBod with the reported GH¢22 billion loss.
At the heart of his response was a straightforward but consequential argument: a loss reflected in the accounts of the Bank of Ghana cannot automatically be attributed to GoldBod when the latter’s audited financial statements tell a different story.
It was an argument that shifted attention from the headline-grabbing loss figure to the more fundamental question of institutional responsibility, accounting records and the actual role GoldBod played in the programme.
For a CEO appearing before a parliamentary committee under intense public scrutiny, the moment called for more than political rhetoric. It demanded familiarity with the accounts, an understanding of the institutional arrangements and the ability to separate the issues rather than allow them to become entangled.
Mr Gyamfi’s response centred on precisely those distinctions.
Audited accounts become his strongest defence
Rather than allow the controversy to be defined solely by the widely publicised loss figure, the GoldBod CEO directed attention to the institution’s audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2025.
He cited an operational surplus of approximately GH¢907 million and an overall surplus of approximately GH¢5.4 billion, including GH¢4.5 billion in government-provided revolving seed capital.
The figures formed the backbone of his defence, as he argued that the reported loss was not reflected in GoldBod’s financial statements.
“The figure you are mentioning has no expression in the financials of GoldBod,” Mr Gyamfi said, according to reports of the proceedings.
The significance of the response lay not merely in the figures themselves but in the distinction he sought to establish between GoldBod’s financial performance and the financial outcomes of the broader gold purchase programme.
By bringing the committee back to the audited accounts, Mr Gyamfi sought to anchor the discussion in verifiable financial records rather than allow the debate to revolve around a single headline figure.
Deputy Finance Minister Thomas Ampem Nyarko also affirmed that the disputed amount did not appear in GoldBod’s financial statements, reinforcing the distinction advanced by the CEO.
A lesson in separating institutional responsibilities
One of the central strengths of Mr Gyamfi’s defence was his insistence that the responsibilities of GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana should not be conflated.
His position was that GoldBod acted as a buying agent under the programme, while the central bank was responsible for the broader foreign exchange mobilisation framework and the subsequent handling of the gold and its proceeds.
That distinction was important because establishing the existence of a loss is not the same as establishing which institution incurred it, how it arose or who bears responsibility for it.
Mr Gyamfi’s argument therefore challenged the basis for linking the reported losses directly to GoldBod without first establishing the relevant accounting treatment and the responsibilities of the institutions involved.
It was a response that demanded the debate be approached through institutional records and financial accountability rather than broad-brush conclusions.
For his supporters, the CEO’s insistence on these distinctions demonstrated an ability to remain focused on the substance of the controversy despite the political heat surrounding the programme.
He confronts the FX trading controversy
Mr Gyamfi also tackled questions about GoldBod’s foreign exchange operations, rejecting suggestions that the institution was engaged in conventional foreign exchange trading.
He explained that GoldBod sells foreign exchange generated through its statutory gold-related activities to the Bank of Ghana, rather than operating as a conventional currency dealer buying and selling foreign exchange for profit.
“The notion that GoldBod is trading FX is wrong,” he argued.
The explanation was intended to clarify the nature of the transactions and distinguish GoldBod’s statutory functions from the activities of a conventional foreign exchange trader.
Here again, the CEO’s approach was to define the institution’s role and challenge what he considered a mischaracterisation of its operations.
His response placed the emphasis on the legal and operational framework governing GoldBod, rather than allowing the controversy to be reduced to a debate over foreign exchange transactions in isolation.
‘Golden Boy’ stands his ground
The hearing placed Mr Gyamfi in a difficult position: defending a relatively new institution against a controversy that had become a major talking point in Ghana’s economic and political discourse.
Yet his defence focused on specific figures, audited statements and the division of responsibilities between GoldBod and the central bank.
That approach gave his appearance a clear central message: GoldBod should be judged on its own financial records and statutory responsibilities, not automatically held accountable for every loss associated with the wider programme.
His ability to keep returning to that argument provided the defining feature of his defence.
While the PAC has a constitutional responsibility to scrutinise public expenditure and demand explanations from public officials, the effectiveness of such scrutiny also depends on properly identifying the institutions, transactions and accounting records relevant to each question.
Mr Gyamfi’s appearance brought that issue into sharp relief.
A defining moment for GoldBod’s CEO
For a CEO facing questions over a multibillion-cedi controversy, the temptation might have been to respond defensively or become distracted by the political dimensions of the debate.
Mr Gyamfi instead built his case around the financial statements, the reported surplus and the distinction between GoldBod’s operations and the Bank of Ghana’s programme-related accounts.
That gave his defence a degree of structure and focus, even as questions remained about the broader financial implications of the gold purchase programme.
The hearing did not, by itself, settle every issue surrounding the reported losses. The Bank of Ghana’s explanation, the underlying transactions and the relevant audit evidence remain essential to a complete assessment.
Nevertheless, the GoldBod CEO used the platform to force attention onto a question that cannot be brushed aside: where, exactly, was the reported loss recorded, and which institution bears responsibility for it?
For a CEO popularly associated with the nickname “Golden Boy,” the performance offered an opportunity to demonstrate that his defence of GoldBod would rest on figures, financial records and institutional accountability.
And while the final verdict on the controversy remains open, Mr Gyamfi made one point central to his appearance: GoldBod’s financial position must be established from its own audited accounts, not assumed from losses attributed to the wider programme.
