Minority Leader Afenyo-Markin Denies Defamatory Claims Amid Gold Programme Loss Probe

Key Takeaways

• Parliamentary Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo‑Markin refutes allegations that his scrutiny of the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme is motivated by personal gain.
• The programme is reported to have generated a US$1.7 billion loss in 2025, prompting questions about the role of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod).
• The dispute has attracted attention from the IMF and reignited debate over the financial risks of Ghana’s gold‑purchasing strategy.

Alexander Afenyo‑Markin, the Minority Leader in Ghana’s Parliament and MP for Effutu, issued a forceful denial of accusations that his calls for accountability over the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) are unfounded. In a social‑media statement on August 22, he described the claims as false and defamatory.

The controversy unfolds against a backdrop of a reported US$1.7 billion loss attributed to the DGPP and an ongoing public exchange with GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi. The International Monetary Fund has also highlighted concerns about the programme’s financial impact.

Background & Context

The DGPP was introduced to stabilise the national currency and generate foreign exchange by purchasing locally mined gold. By 2025, official figures indicated a loss of approximately US$1.7 billion, a development that has drawn scrutiny from both domestic oversight bodies and international lenders.

The Ghana Gold Board, a state‑owned entity tasked with aggregating and marketing Ghanaian gold, has been implicated in the execution of the programme. Critics argue that insufficient safeguards may have amplified the fiscal shortfall.

Parliamentary Oversight and Allegations

Afenyo‑Markin asserted that his inquiries are rooted in the constitutional duty of Parliament to monitor public institutions. He emphasized that personal attacks and insinuations about ulterior motives are intended to shift focus from substantive financial questions.

He noted that officials uncomfortable with rigorous examination often resort to character attacks. The Minority’s position is that the loss warrants a detailed investigation to determine causality, institutional responsibility, and the adequacy of existing controls.

Financial Implications and GoldBod Role

The reported loss raises concerns about the sustainability of Ghana’s gold‑purchasing strategy. Analysts warn that large‑scale domestic purchases can expose the central bank to market volatility, especially when global gold prices fluctuate.

GoldBod’s involvement is under particular scrutiny because the board acts as an intermediary between miners and the central bank. Determining whether procedural lapses or contractual terms contributed to the loss is central to the Minority’s agenda.

Looking Ahead

Parliament is expected to commission a formal inquiry into the DGPP, with testimony from BoG officials, GoldBod executives, and independent financial experts. The outcome may influence future policy on gold acquisitions and affect Ghana’s negotiations with the IMF.

The episode underscores the tension between governmental oversight and institutional resistance, a dynamic that will shape fiscal governance in the coming months.