Ghana’s central banking credibility has come under renewed scrutiny following mounting questions over Bank of Ghana gold reporting, after conflicting accounts emerged regarding losses under the Gold for Reserves programme and what was disclosed to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The controversy, triggered by parliamentary hearings and a Right to Information (RTI) request, raises broader concerns about transparency, fiscal oversight, and the integrity of data shared with international partners at a critical stage of Ghana’s economic recovery.
At the centre of the debate is a reported GH¢3.8 billion loss in 2024 linked to the Gold for Reserves initiative, a programme designed to strengthen Ghana’s foreign exchange buffers through domestic gold purchases. While the Bank of Ghana acknowledged the figure in an RTI response to a media request, the claim appeared to unravel when the Governor was unable to provide documentation to Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee to substantiate the loss. This discrepancy has fuelled accusations of inconsistency and possible non-disclosure to the IMF.
Bank of Ghana gold reporting and IMF accountability
The issue has been escalated by former Finance Minister Dr Mohammed Amin Adam, who argues that if such losses genuinely occurred, they should have been reflected both in the central bank’s published financial statements and in official data submissions to the IMF. Under Ghana’s IMF Extended Credit Facility programme, the Bank of Ghana is required to provide accurate and comprehensive data on reserves, quasi-fiscal operations, and any losses that could affect monetary stability.
The apparent absence of the GH¢3.8 billion loss from IMF review documents, contrasted with the IMF’s separate reporting of a $214 million loss in gold operations in 2025, has sharpened concerns about Bank of Ghana gold reporting standards. For IMF programmes, misreporting is not a procedural lapse; it is a serious breach that can delay disbursements, trigger corrective actions, or undermine programme credibility altogether.
Why the Gold for Reserves programme matters
The Gold for Reserves policy was introduced to reduce pressure on the cedi, conserve foreign exchange, and strengthen reserve adequacy without relying solely on external borrowing. In principle, the strategy aligns with broader efforts to localise value chains and leverage Ghana’s gold endowment for macroeconomic stability.
However, losses, whether operational, valuation-based, or governance-related, change the policy calculus. If poorly reported or inconsistently disclosed, such losses weaken confidence not only in the programme itself but in the broader institutional framework governing monetary policy. For investors and development partners, clarity in Bank of Ghana gold reporting is essential to assessing the true health of Ghana’s reserve position.
Implications for businesses and financial markets
For businesses, particularly import-dependent firms, the credibility of reserve management directly affects currency stability, inflation expectations, and access to foreign exchange. Any perception that reserve-related losses are being obscured or inconsistently reported could increase risk premiums, tighten credit conditions, and amplify exchange rate volatility.
Financial institutions are also exposed. Banks rely on the central bank’s balance sheet strength to anchor confidence in the financial system. Unclear gold-related losses raise questions about the extent of quasi-fiscal risks embedded within the central bank’s operations, potentially affecting liquidity management and regulatory confidence.
Household-level consequences
At the household level, the issue may appear technical, but the effects are tangible. Weak confidence in monetary governance often translates into higher inflation expectations, elevated borrowing costs, and currency depreciation. These pressures feed directly into food prices, utility tariffs, and transport costs, areas where households already face significant strain.
If disputes over Bank of Ghana gold reporting were to undermine Ghana’s standing with the IMF, delays in programme support could slow macroeconomic stabilisation, prolonging the cost-of-living pressures facing ordinary citizens.
Transparency gaps and institutional trust
Beyond the numbers, the episode highlights a deeper governance challenge. Central banks operate on trust—trust that their data is accurate, their disclosures complete, and their engagement with oversight institutions credible. The inability to reconcile RTI disclosures, parliamentary testimony, published accounts, and IMF submissions exposes gaps that demand urgent clarification.
While technical explanations, such as timing differences, accounting treatments, or valuation methodologies—may yet emerge, the burden lies with the Bank of Ghana to provide a coherent narrative backed by documentation. Silence or ambiguity risks reinforcing perceptions of institutional opacity at a time when confidence is fragile.
A test for reform credibility
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Bank of Ghana gold reporting is a test of Ghana’s broader reform agenda. As the country works to exit an IMF programme and rebuild market access, institutional transparency is as important as fiscal discipline. Clear, consistent, and verifiable reporting is not optional; it is foundational to credibility.
Whether this episode results in corrective disclosure, strengthened oversight, or deeper reform will shape not only perceptions of the Gold for Reserves programme but also confidence in Ghana’s economic governance going forward.