The Director of Research at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), Prof. Alexander Bilson Darku, has rejected claims that the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) recorded a US$1.7 billion loss under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) in 2025.

His comments come amid a public debate over a reported US$1.7 billion loss incurred by the Bank of Ghana (BoG) in 2025 in connection with the programme.

Speaking in an interview with Jude Duncan on Channel One TV’s The Point of View on Wednesday, September 2, Prof. Darku said the IMF report at the centre of the debate did not attribute the loss to GoldBod.

According to him, the loss was recorded on the books of the central bank, and the focus should therefore be on why the Bank of Ghana incurred the loss.

“I really don’t understand why we still talk about this issue this way, in the sense that the IMF report that you made reference to does not say that GoldBod made a loss,” he said.

“It says the central bank is making a loss. It says that it sits on the central bank books. Very clear in that. So from where is the debate that GoldBod made a loss?” he added.

Prof. Darku explained that GoldBod acted as an agent of the Bank of Ghana under the programme, purchasing gold on behalf of the central bank before the gold was exported.

“The second way of looking at it is, we’re forgetting that GoldBod was an agent, an agent that bought gold for the central bank, on behalf and for the central bank. The central bank that got it exported it,” he said.

He said the IEA had previously explained that the losses were recorded on the central bank’s books, although there had been arguments that the cost should instead have been absorbed by government through the national budget because the programme was quasi-fiscal in nature.

“Many people argue that it should not have sat there; it should rather be absorbed by government in its budget, because it is quasi-fiscal,” he said.

Prof. Darku, however, said regardless of where the cost should ideally have been recorded, the accounting treatment meant the reported loss remained on the Bank of Ghana’s books.

“So if we are discussing, we should discuss whether, why did the central bank make that loss or not,” he said.

He further explained that the reported loss comprised several components, including fees and discounts paid by the Bank of Ghana to GoldBod.

“We even went ahead to show you the component of that loss, that it is the fees, the discounts, and all those things, that the central bank paid GoldBod,” he said.

Prof. Darku said such payments could be considered revenue to GoldBod rather than losses incurred by the institution.

“If that is the case, then actually those are revenues to GoldBod, and can be a loss to GoldBod,” he said.

He identified foreign exchange valuation as the major component of the reported loss, explaining that differences in the exchange rates used by GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana contributed significantly to the figure.

According to him, when dollar revenue from gold exports is received, the Bank of Ghana records the inflow in cedis using its official exchange rate, which he said was lower than the rate at which GoldBod purchased the gold on the central bank’s behalf.

“And the major part of that loss is the foreign exchange valuation,” he said.

Prof. Darku argued that the exchange-rate treatment was not a decision made by GoldBod but rather resulted from policy and accounting decisions involving the government and the central bank.

“I do not think it was the decision of GoldBod to buy the gold at the forex rate. It is a decision of the government through the central bank,” he said.

He added that the difference between the rate used to purchase the gold and the rate used by the Bank of Ghana to record the dollar inflows in cedis was therefore an issue for the central bank to account for.

“So that rate being higher than the one that the central bank books, the dollar inflow in Cedis in its books is the central bank’s decision,” he said.