Institute of Economic Research Presses Gold Board Over Missing Quarterly Reports

Key Takeaways

• IER I demands an explanation for the removal of Gold Board quarterly reports from its website.
• Section 42 of the Ghana Gold Board Act mandates continuous public access to these reports.
• The missing data hampers parliamentary oversight of the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.

The Institute of Economic Research and Public Policy (IERPP) has formally requested that the Ghana Gold Board disclose who authorized the deletion of its quarterly trading reports, when the removal occurred, and whether any figures were altered. The institute frames the issue as a breach of statutory transparency requirements.

Gold Board’s quarterly publications detail volumes purchased, export values, and contractual terms that underpin Ghana’s gold revenue stream. Their sudden disappearance raises questions about the board’s compliance with the 2025 Act and the ability of citizens and lawmakers to scrutinise public finances.

Legal Framework and Obligations

Section 42 of the Ghana Gold Board Act, 2025 (Act 1140) obliges the board to publish quarterly reports covering operations, revenue, contracts, and sourcing practices. Sub‑section 42(2) extends the duty, requiring that the information remain readily accessible to the public for the duration of its relevance.

The legislation treats the reports not merely as periodic disclosures but as enduring records that enable accountability. Failure to maintain an accessible archive could constitute a contravention of the Act, exposing the board to legal and regulatory scrutiny.

Missing Reports and Their Significance

The second‑quarter 2025 report revealed that Gold Board purchased 26,009.56 kg of gold from artisanal miners, valued at roughly US$2.62 billion, while exports from the same sector reached 30,361.64 kg, worth about US$2.99 billion. These figures provide a benchmark for evaluating the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme’s performance.

When such data are withdrawn, analysts lose a reference point for tracking trends in purchase volumes, pricing regimes, and fee structures. The opacity also impedes independent verification of claims about profit margins, off‑taker fees, and the overall fiscal impact of the programme.

Implications for Governance and the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme

Gold Board enforces reporting compliance on private miners, yet its own reporting practices appear inconsistent. This asymmetry undermines confidence in the board’s governance model and may deter stakeholder engagement.

Parliamentary oversight depends on reliable data to assess whether the programme delivers a net benefit to the treasury. Without access to historical reports, legislators cannot accurately gauge the reported US$1.7 billion loss or validate the board’s recent advances of US$839 million for purchases made between March and May 2026.

Looking Ahead

IERPP urges the board to restore the full archive of quarterly reports, publish a log of removal dates, and disclose any revisions with explanatory notes. Such actions would align practice with statutory obligations and restore public trust.

Continued reforms to the gold purchasing system, including a new pricing regime and real‑time transaction reporting, will be more credible if accompanied by transparent, permanent documentation of past performance.