Karaga Member of Parliament and former Finance Minister, Dr Mohammed Amin Adam, has called for the removal of the Governor of the Bank of Ghana from the Board of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), arguing that the arrangement creates a clear conflict of interest.
Dr Amin Adam said it was inappropriate for the Governor to remain on the board of an institution handling a programme that was being financed by the Bank of Ghana while the central bank itself was recording losses from the same programme.
He argued that the Bank of Ghana could not continue providing financing to GoldBod for gold purchases while simultaneously bearing losses arising from the programme being operated by GoldBod.
“You cannot be lending to GoldBod when your own institution, the Bank of Ghana, is making losses from the programme being handled by GoldBod, and still be lending to it,” Dr Amin Adam said.
According to him, the Governor’s presence on GoldBod’s board raises questions about the independence of oversight, particularly because the Bank of Ghana was both a financier of the programme and an institution affected by its financial performance.
“Remove the Governor of the Bank of Ghana from GoldBod’s board, since his own institution funds the programme,” he demanded.
Dr Amin Adam’s comments form part of the NPP’s broader concerns over the gold purchase programme, following the IMF’s assessment that the programme carried an economic cost of about GH¢22 billion in 2025.
He said the figures reported by the IMF, Bank of Ghana and GoldBod must be reconciled to give Ghanaians a clear picture of how the programme performed financially.
The former Finance Minister also called for the disclosure of the identities of foreign buyers, the discounts granted to them and the commercial terms under which Ghana’s gold was sold.
He further welcomed the Bank of Ghana’s decision to stop pre-financing gold purchases from July 1, 2026, but insisted that the decision did not remove the need to account for the losses already incurred.
Dr Amin Adam said the NPP would continue to demand answers and support a full parliamentary inquiry into the programme, insisting that the issue was ultimately about transparency and accountability in the management of public funds.
