Ghana’s flagship Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) and its related Gold-for-Reserves (G4R) framework recorded cumulative losses exceeding GH¢7 billion between 2022 and 2024, according to the Bank of Ghana’s (BoG) official disclosure. This raises concerns about the financial cost of using gold-based interventions to stabilize the economy.
In an official answer to a Right to Information (RTI) request, the Bank of Ghana stated that since 2022, the central bank has given an annual breakdown of net losses under the DGPP and G4R programs. In 2022, there were net losses of GH¢74.44 million. In the years that followed, there were subsequent net losses of GH¢1.37 billion and GH¢5.66 billion in 2023 and 2024 respectively.
These numbers, which come from official audited records, show the total losses from transactions involving both gold and oil as well as the program’s artisanal and small-scale mining components. By the conclusion of 2024, the aggregate losses from both interventions exceeded GH₵7 billion, with the 2025 figures still awaiting external audit verification.
Central bank officials state that the losses originate from the design and operational framework of the DGPP and G4R initiatives—both aimed at stabilizing the Ghanaian cedi and increasing foreign exchange reserves by integrating more domestically mined gold into the formal economy. Some key factors that contributed to these recorded losses include market pricing and timing, operational cost as well as the framework of Gold-for-reserves.
Even when the country’s macroeconomic stability improved, the expense of buying gold in cedis and converting the revenues to foreign exchange resulted in accounting losses on the Bank of Ghana’s balance sheet. Subsequently, engaging with artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) through intermediaries, refining and processing charges, and price differentials all contributed to greater expenses in relation to revenue from sales. In the same vein, losses from the G4R component, containing gold used to build reserves or related to other commodities like oil, increased the measured deficit.
The Bank of Ghana has defended the measures, stating that the reported financial costs were a conscious national decision intended at ensuring broader economic stability, such as cedi support and foreign exchange buffers during times of external shocks. Governor Dr. Johnson Asiama made it known to Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee that the central bank deliberately accepted these costs in pursuit of national interest objectives.
