‘Sue me if you’re not an extortionist’ — Sammy Gyamfi dares Afenyo-Markin

Gyamfi challenges Minority Leader to drag him to court over extortionist tag
In what appears to be a nail-biting encounter, Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, has challenged Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin to take him to court if he believes he was wrongly described as an “extortionist.” Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile programme on Saturday, August 22, 2026, Mr Gyamfi maintained that his description of the Effutu MP was justified and urged him to seek legal redress if he disagreed with the allegation.

Addressing host Samson Lardy Anyenini, Mr Gyamfi said: “Samson, tell Afenyo-Markin that you want to be his lawyer to sue me for calling him an extortionist.”

He added: “I challenge Afenyo-Markin to sue me if he is not an extortionist.” An extortionist is generally understood to be a person who uses threats, intimidation, pressure or force to obtain money, property or some other benefit from another person.

‘He got the responses he deserved’
Mr Gyamfi was defending comments he made in response to a recent press conference by the Minority Leader and other members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Minority Caucus over GoldBod and the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP). According to the GoldBod CEO, Mr Afenyo-Markin’s criticism warranted the response he received.

“He got the responses he deserved,” Mr Gyamfi said, while arguing that he had treated the Effutu MP differently from other opposition politicians who had raised concerns about GoldBod.
He cited former Finance Minister Mohammed Amin Adam and former Minister of State at the Finance Ministry Abena Osei-Asare as examples of NPP figures whose criticisms, he said, were more constructive. Mr. Gyamfi argued that he had held numerous press conferences throughout his political career but had not developed a habit of labelling people as extortionists.

GoldBod loss claims at the centre of dispute

The latest political confrontation comes amid an intensifying debate over the financial performance of GoldBod and the broader Domestic Gold Purchase Programme. The Minority has questioned the financial implications of the programme and linked GoldBod to losses running into billions of dollars. The controversy has particularly focused on an International Monetary Fund (IMF) assessment that the scaling-up of the DGPP in 2025 resulted in losses exceeding US$1.7 billion, equivalent to about 1.5 per cent of Ghana’s GDP.

However, GoldBod’s audited 2025 financial statements tell a different story at the entity level. The institution reported total revenue of about GH¢5.55 billion against expenditure of approximately GH¢109.58 million, resulting in an overall surplus of about GH¢5.44 billion. Of that amount, approximately GH¢4.55 billion represented government seed capital or grant support. GoldBod’s operational surplus was approximately GH¢909.7 million. GoldBod has therefore rejected the suggestion that it itself recorded a US$1.7 billion loss.

Three different figures — three different accounting levels
The disagreement over the figures largely turns on the distinction between GoldBod’s accounts, the Bank of Ghana’s accounts and the programme as a whole.
At the GoldBod entity level, the audited accounts show a surplus of approximately GH¢5.44 billion for 2025. Even after separating the government grant from the calculation, GoldBod’s disclosures point to an operational surplus of roughly GH¢909.7 million.
At the Bank of Ghana level, gold-related losses are recognised within the central bank’s financial statements.

At the DGPP programme level, the IMF has estimated losses exceeding US$1.7 billion, reflecting the broader economics of the programme rather than necessarily a loss appearing on GoldBod’s own income statement. The IMF has identified factors including the pricing and exchange-rate structure, as well as fees and discounts associated with the gold transactions. These figures can therefore coexist without necessarily contradicting one another.

Who actually bears the loss?
The central question, therefore, is not simply whether the DGPP generated losses, but where those losses arose and which institution ultimately bore them.
GoldBod’s defence is that the programme cuts across several institutions and that a programme-level loss should not automatically be attributed entirely to GoldBod.

A proper reconciliation would have to establish who determined the domestic purchase price, who financed the purchases, who carried foreign-exchange exposure, who paid assay and service fees, who negotiated off-taker discounts, who owned the gold at different stages and who ultimately received the proceeds. It would also need to establish the precise point at which each gain or loss was recognised in the accounts of GoldBod, the Bank of Ghana or another state institution.

The IMF has confirmed that the Bank of Ghana purchased substantial quantities of gold through the DGPP, with GoldBod charging service and assay fees on the transactions.

Gyamfi points to benefits of the gold programme
Mr Gyamfi has maintained that the programme should not be assessed solely through the lens of its costs. GoldBod has argued that its activities helped mobilise foreign exchange and support Ghana’s reserve accumulation and currency stability. In a recent defence of the programme, Mr Gyamfi said GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana had generated more than US$10.8 billion in foreign exchange earnings from the purchase and export of artisanal and small-scale mining gold.

GoldBod has also argued that the programme has helped formalise the gold trade and reduce the leakage of foreign exchange through informal channels.

The IMF, for its part, says GoldBod was established to centralise the purchase, trade and export of gold, particularly from artisanal and small-scale mining, with the broader objectives of improving foreign-exchange receipts, supporting reserve accumulation and addressing longstanding fragmentation in the gold sector.

Kofi Bentil: GoldBod is a major achievement, but not perfect
Vice President of IMANI Africa, Kofi Bentil, has also weighed into the broader debate over GoldBod. Mr. Bentil has described GoldBod as a significant achievement in the management of Ghana’s gold resources, while stressing that the institution is not without shortcomings.

His position underscores a wider argument emerging from the controversy: GoldBod can deliver important economic benefits while still requiring stronger controls, transparency and accountability around the costs of the gold-purchasing programme.

Calls for greater transparency
The political dispute has consequently moved beyond the question of whether GoldBod made a loss to questions about how the entire DGPP should be structured and reported. A comprehensive programme-level reconciliation could provide a clearer picture by tracing every significant gold transaction from purchase through assay, processing, financing, export and final sale.

Such a reconciliation should disclose the quantity purchased, domestic purchase price, international benchmark price, exchange rate applied, financing arrangements, assay and processing costs, service fees, off-taker discounts, disposal price and foreign-exchange outcome.

It should also identify which institution recognised each gain or loss.
How future losses could be reduced
Several measures could help improve the programme’s efficiency. First, the domestic gold-purchasing formula could be more closely linked to prevailing international benchmark prices and economically sustainable exchange rates. Paying an excessive premium for locally sourced gold can create a loss before the commodity is ultimately sold.

Second, the exchange-rate mechanism could be reviewed to minimise losses arising from significant differences between the rate used when gold is purchased and the rate applied when transactions are monetised or accounted for.

Third, assay fees, service charges, refining costs and off-taker discounts should be commercially justified, competitively negotiated and regularly subjected to value-for-money assessments.

Fourth, each major gold transaction could have a transaction-level profit-and-loss analysis so that management can identify precisely whether a particular purchase generated a gain or loss and the factors responsible.

Finally, Parliament and the public could receive periodic programme-level reports in addition to the individual financial statements of GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana.

Political confrontation meets an accounting question
The latest exchange between Sammy Gyamfi and Alexander Afenyo-Markin reflects the increasingly heated political battle over Ghana’s gold strategy.
While Mr Gyamfi insists that GoldBod should not be blamed for the entire US$1.7 billion programme-level loss, the Minority continues to demand answers about the financial implications of the DGPP.

The audited accounts establish that GoldBod itself reported a GH¢5.44 billion surplus in 2025. The IMF, meanwhile, has identified more than US$1.7 billion in losses at the broader DGPP level.
The task now is to reconcile those figures transaction by transaction and determine who ultimately bore each component of the cost.

Until then, the political battle over GoldBod is likely to continue — with Gyamfi daring Afenyo-Markin to settle their personal dispute in court and the wider public debate focusing on a more fundamental question: how much does Ghana actually gain or lose from its domestic gold-purchasing strategy?