Sammy Gyamfi Dismisses G4R Loss Claims, Says Gold Board Has Suffered No Financial Damage

Sammy Gyamfi, Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board, has dismissed allegations that the Gold-for-Reserves (G4R) program caused financial losses to the board.

Sammy Gyamfi Rejects Claims of Financial Losses Under G4R Programme

In a sharp response to allegations that the Ghana Gold Board has lost funds through the Gold for Reserves program, Sammy Gyamfi, Chief Executive Officer at the Ghana Gold Board, has declared that such assertions are false and have absolutely no foundation.

As Mr. Gyamfi indicated, the allegations fail to consider elementary facts about its creation and operation as a Gold Board. He was adamant that blaming the losses for the GCB’s program to an entity that had not fully had its first year does not make economic, as well as factual, sense because the Gold Board had not suffered its first loss related to the G4R program initiative.

Gold-for-Reserves Identified as a Bank of Ghana Monetary Policy

Sammy Gyamfi explained that the Gold-for-Reserves (G4R) program, in principle, is a BoG monetary policy programme introduced in 2022 as part of broad efforts to stabilize the Ghana cedi and restore the country’s depleted foreign exchange reserves. According to him, attempts to link the programme with the operational or financial performance of the Ghana Gold Board are misplaced and inaccurate.

Mr Gyamfi said the G4R programme was conceived at a time when Ghana was facing serious foreign exchange constraints and limited access to international capital markets. In response, the central bank pursued a policy strategy leveraging domestically mined gold as part of its strategic reserve asset base. Through the purchase of gold with Ghana cedi and simultaneously selling for foreign currency, the BoG was able to inject liquidity and support exchange rate stability.

He made the point that the G4R programme, being a monetary policy tool, falls squarely within the constitutional and statutory mandate of the Bank of Ghana. The objectives that it is supposed to advance are macroeconomic in nature, namely price stability, currency support, and reserve accumulation, rather than profit generation. As such, the programme is designed, executed, and accounted for wholly by the central bank.

In reinforcing his argument, Mr Gyamfi highlighted that central banks worldwide routinely incur policy-related costs in the pursuit of economic stability. Such costs, he explained, should not be mischaracterised as losses in the commercial sense. The G4R programme, he said, must be assessed within the context of national economic management rather than corporate profitability.

He concluded by urging the public and political commentators to distinguish clearly between monetary policy decisions of the Bank of Ghana and the regulatory and operational mandate of the Gold Board. According to him, doing so is essential for informed public discourse and for maintaining confidence in Ghana’s economic institutions.

Gold Board Not Operational When G4R Programme Was Introduced

Sammy Gyamfi has stated that one of the most overlooked facts in the ongoing debate about the Gold-for-Reserves (G4R) programme is the timeline of the Gold Board’s establishment. He emphasized that the Ghana Gold Board was not in existence when the Bank of Ghana launched the programme in 2022, making it logically and institutionally incorrect to associate the board with any outcomes of the policy during that period.

According to Mr Gyamfi, the Gold Board was formally established in April 2024 under the Gold Board Act, following parliamentary approval and the completion of key legal processes. By that time, the G4R programme had already been in operation for nearly two years, with all decisions, transactions, and accounting responsibilities managed solely by the Bank of Ghana. He stressed that no legal or operational link existed between the programme and the Gold Board at the time of its implementation.

Mr Gyamfi explained that attributing financial outcomes of the G4R programme to the Gold Board ignores basic principles of institutional accountability. He questioned how an organisation that had not yet been created could be held responsible for policies conceived, approved, and executed by a separate constitutional body. In his view, such claims reflect either a misunderstanding of governance structures or a deliberate attempt to misinform the public.

All G4R Transactions Properly Accounted for by Bank of Ghana

Sammy Gyamfi emphasised that all financial activities related to the Gold-for-Reserves (G4R) programme are fully recorded and monitored by the Bank of Ghana. He clarified that the programme was never under the financial or operational control of the Ghana Gold Board or the Precious Minerals Marketing Company (PMMC).

According to Mr Gyamfi, all G4R purchases, conversions, and transfers are accurately reflected in the Bank of Ghana’s financial statements. “The Gold Board cannot be held responsible for transactions that do not appear in its accounts,” he said, noting that the programme was designed as a macro-economic policy tool rather than a profit-making initiative.

He further explained that the G4R programme uses locally mined gold purchased with cedis, converts it into foreign currency, and injects dollars into the market to stabilise the cedi and support national reserves. These strategic actions are aimed at currency stability, inflation control, and reserve accumulation, not commercial gain.

Mr Gyamfi urged the public and political commentators to distinguish clearly between the monetary policy responsibilities of the central bank and the regulatory role of the Gold Board, stating that conflating the two misrepresents the facts and unfairly targets the newly established board.

Institutional Reforms Drive Initial Operational Costs

Sammy Gyamfi highlighted that the early months of the Ghana Gold Board’s operations were dedicated to institutional reforms and capacity building. He explained that the board inherited the operational framework of the Precious Minerals Marketing Company (PMMC), but its expanded mandate required a complete restructuring to meet the responsibilities outlined in the Gold Board Act.

According to Mr Gyamfi, the board had to establish several new divisions and specialised units, including risk management, gold trading, compliance, and enforcement departments with police powers. These changes were necessary to ensure proper oversight of the gold sector, strengthen regulatory systems, and build a professional workforce capable of managing Ghana’s gold resources efficiently.

He added that hiring new staff, developing operational protocols, and implementing modern trading and reporting systems were essential steps in building institutional capacity. “The first seven months of the Gold Board’s existence were foundational. A child must learn to crawl before it walks, and walk before it runs,” Mr Gyamfi remarked, emphasising the deliberate, step-by-step approach to organisational growth.

Mr Gyamfi explained that these initial investments in personnel, technology, and enforcement mechanisms are long-term strategic costs aimed at creating a stronger, more transparent institution. By prioritising capacity building, the board ensures that it can regulate the gold sector effectively while supporting Ghana’s economic stability, reinforcing public confidence in the organisation’s ability to manage the country’s valuable mineral resources.

Political Claims on G4R Described as Misrepresentation

In conclusion, Sammy Gyamfi reiterated that the Gold Board should not be held accountable for any financial outcomes of the Gold-for-Reserves (G4R) programme, which is solely a Bank of Ghana policy initiative. He emphasised that attempts to link the board to reported losses reflect a misunderstanding of institutional responsibilities and timelines.

Mr Gyamfi also criticised political actors who, in his view, have misrepresented the programme’s purpose and framework for political gain. He stressed that the G4R initiative is a strategic monetary policy tool, designed to stabilise the cedi, boost foreign exchange reserves, and protect the national economy, not to generate profit.

He called on the public, media, and political commentators to distinguish clearly between the regulatory and operational mandate of the Ghana Gold Board and the monetary policy functions of the Bank of Ghana. Doing so, he said, is essential for maintaining public confidence, promoting transparency, and supporting informed discourse on Ghana’s economic management.

Mr Gyamfi concluded by reaffirming the Gold Board’s commitment to building a strong, transparent, and accountable institution capable of overseeing Ghana’s gold sector while supporting national development goals.