The Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, has clarified that the Gold-for-Reserves (G4R) initiative is a programme of the Bank of Ghana (BoG) and not an operation designed, owned or managed by GoldBod.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, January 3, Mr Gyamfi explained that the initiative was introduced by the Bank of Ghana in 2022 and has, since its inception, been fully funded, managed and accounted for by the central bank.

“The Gold-for-Reserves programme we have been running is a Bank of Ghana programme introduced in 2022. It is funded by the Bank of Ghana, and it has always reflected in the books of the Bank of Ghana in 2022, 2023 and 2024, when the NPP was in power,” he stated.

Mr Gyamfi stressed that the programme’s accounts were never captured in the books of the Precious Minerals Marketing Company (PMMC) and have at all times remained with the Bank of Ghana, underscoring that it is a BoG-funded initiative.

He questioned claims seeking to attribute reported losses under the programme to GoldBod, describing such assertions as misleading.

“So where from this claim that it is GoldBod that has made losses? An eight-month-old company is now being held responsible for losses of the Bank of Ghana?” he asked.

According to the GoldBod CEO, the Gold-for-Reserves initiative is a non-profit monetary policy tool introduced by the central bank to support its primary mandate of ensuring price stability.

He emphasised that any losses recorded under the programme should not be attributed to GoldBod, nor should they be construed as evidence of mismanagement or incompetence on the part of the Bank of Ghana.

“That programme, any loss under it is not attributable to an eight-month-old GoldBod, neither is it attributable to mismanagement or incompetence by the BoG. Dr Asiamah and the team at the Bank of Ghana are not responsible for any loss through incompetence or mismanagement,” he said.

Mr Gyamfi further explained that the programme was deliberately structured to absorb strategic costs in pursuit of broader macroeconomic objectives, particularly currency stabilisation.

“We are not saying there were no losses, but that does not mean someone incurred losses through mismanagement. That is how the policy was designed. It is unfortunate that those under whom the policy was introduced now appear ignorant of its objectives and design,” he added.

He maintained that attempts to link GoldBod to losses under the Gold-for-Reserves programme ignore the legal and operational framework of the initiative and risk misleading the public about the respective roles of the institutions involved.