You cannot cover up Goldbod probe forever – Oppong Nkrumah to Majority

The decision by Parliament’s Majority side to block a proposed inquiry into the Gold-for-Reserves programme has drawn sharp criticism from former Information Minister, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah.

The Offoase Ayirebi MP has described the move as a troubling setback for accountability and parliamentary oversight.

Mr Oppong Nkrumah, who also serves as Ranking Member on Parliament’s Economy and Development Committee, was the originator of the motion seeking a comprehensive investigation into the programme run by the Bank of Ghana since 2021.

The motion, debated on Friday, March 27, 2026, sought to establish an inquiry into the design, operation, financial performance, and cost structure of the Gold-for-Reserves policy.

The programme, introduced during the previous administration, has been a central pillar of the economic strategy, aimed at boosting foreign exchange reserves, stabilising the cedi, and reducing dependence on external currencies by leveraging the country’s gold resources.

Historically, the reliance on commodities such as cocoa—exported since 1897—has shaped its foreign exchange accumulation strategy.

However, the introduction of the Gold-for-Reserves initiative marked a significant shift, with policymakers positioning it as one of the most impactful tools for building reserves in recent decades.

According to Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, the programme has become the most significant contributor to foreign exchange accumulation in modern economic history, making it imperative for Parliament to fully understand its workings and outcomes.

Despite this, the Majority side of Parliament rejected the motion through a voice vote, effectively halting any formal investigation into the programme.

For Oppong Nkrumah and his colleagues on the Minority side, the decision represents what he describes as a missed opportunity for Parliament to fulfil its constitutional oversight role.

Reacting to the outcome, Oppong Nkrumah said he found the Majority’s decision “bizarre,” arguing that the proposed inquiry would have provided Parliament—and by extension the Ghanaian public—with a clearer understanding of the programme’s true performance, including competing claims about financial losses under both the previous New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration and the current National Democratic Congress (NDC) government.

At the centre of the controversy are claims that the programme recorded a $214 million loss in 2025, a figure cited in political debates and reportedly referenced in international assessments.

The proposed inquiry was expected to examine not only these losses but also the broader financial and operational dynamics of the initiative since its inception.

The Ofoase-Ayirebi MP, Oppong Nkrumah, argued that Parliament has consistently approved the programme as part of the economic policy framework since 2023, and therefore has a duty to scrutinise its implementation.

“Why would Parliament decline an opportunity to exercise oversight on a programme it has itself approved?” he questioned, describing the Majority’s stance as akin to abandoning its constitutional responsibility.

He further raised concerns about the programme’s cost structure, alleging that for every $10 million released by the Bank of Ghana in 2025, approximately 15 per cent was lost to handling, transactional, and related charges.

According to him, such figures warrant a thorough investigation to determine whether the costs are justified and to identify possible corrective measures.

Another major issue highlighted by the MP relates to the management of the gold reserves under the programme.

He claimed that about 50 per cent of the gold acquired was sold off in the fourth quarter of 2025, around the same time calls for an inquiry were being made.

He questioned the rationale behind this decision, especially in light of subsequent government plans to repurchase gold at potentially higher prices, describing the sequence of actions as illogical and deserving of parliamentary scrutiny.

The Minority MP also raised concerns about the source of gold purchased under the programme, particularly in light of illegal small-scale mining, commonly known as galamsey.

He noted that while the President has indicated that 60 per cent of the gold exports come from small-scale mining, experts estimate that up to 80 per cent of that segment may be linked to illegal operations.

This, he argued, makes it critical for Parliament to investigate whether the Gold-for-Reserves programme is inadvertently relying on gold sourced from illegal mining activities.

He accused the Majority of choosing to “spin narratives” rather than subject the programme to a bipartisan, fact-based investigation that could establish the full truth.

“It is obvious that the Majority side has chosen partisanship over Ghana’s best interest. They prefer propaganda to facts,” he stated.

Despite the setback, Oppong Nkrumah indicated that the Minority would not abandon the issue. He pledged that alternative avenues would be pursued to ensure accountability, and suggested that a future Parliament with a different majority could reopen the matter.

“There is no statute of limitations on matters such as this,” he emphasised.

The rejection of the motion leaves several key questions about the Gold-for-Reserves programme unanswered, including its true financial performance, cost efficiency, and long-term sustainability.