By Clement Akoloh
ACCRA, May 3, 2026 — The Bank of Ghana’s 2025 financial results have ignited a sharp three-way debate among policymakers, with government, opposition, and central bank officials offering starkly different interpretations of the reported GHS 15.6 billion loss.
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental question: Was the loss the unavoidable cost of stabilising Ghana’s economy, or evidence of policy missteps with broader economic consequences?
BoG: “A Necessary Cost of Stability”*
Presenting the Bank’s 2025 Annual Report on May 1, Governor Dr Johnson Asiama defended the results as the price of restoring macroeconomic stability.
The Bank attributes the loss primarily to two factors:
- GHS 16.7 billion spent on Open Market Operations (OMO) to mop up excess liquidity and curb inflation
- GHS 9 billion in accounting losses linked to its Gold Purchase Programme
According to the Bank, these interventions have yielded measurable gains:
- Inflation declined sharply from 23.8% to 3.2% by March 2026
- The cedi appreciated by 42%, making it one of the strongest-performing currencies globally
- Gross international reserves reached $14.5 billion, supported by gold accumulation rising from under one tonne in 2021 to 111 tonnes
The Bank also pointed to falling lending rates, from over 30% in 2024 to about 17.7%, with projections toward 15%.
On concerns about its balance sheet, the BoG stressed that its negative equity position of GHS 96.3 billion stems largely from the 2022 Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP), not current operations.
“Central banks can operate effectively with negative equity. Their authority derives from law, not their balance sheet,” officials maintained.
Minority: “A Hidden GHS 44 Billion Loss and Wealth Transfer”
The opposition New Patriotic Party (Minority Caucus), led on the issue by Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, has rejected the BoG’s framing.
At a May 3 press conference, the group argued that the true financial impact is significantly higher:
“The real operating loss is closer to GHS 34.9 billion. When gold-related transactions are included, total losses could approach GHS 44 billion.”
The Minority’s critique rests on three key claims:
1. Avoidable Policy Costs
They argue that the GHS 16.7 billion OMO expenditure resulted from a reversal of earlier liquidity management tools, such as the Dynamic Cash Reserve Ratio, which had allowed banks’ liquidity to be controlled at little or no cost.
2. Wealth Transfer to Banks
The group alleges that about GHS 14.6 billion in interest payments to commercial banks effectively boosted bank profitability while private sector credit contracted by 13.9% in 2025.
“This represents a transfer of public resources to banks at the expense of investment in jobs and social services,” the Minority argued.
3. Losses in Gold Transactions
They also contend that while the BoG recorded losses on gold purchases, the state-linked gold trading entity reported profits, resulting in what they describe as a net fiscal loss.
Beyond the numbers, the Minority tied the issue to broader economic conditions, citing unemployment concerns and constraints in credit access for businesses.
Majority: “Don’t Politicise the Central Bank”
The Majority Caucus, along with officials such as Sammy Gyamfi, has strongly defended the Bank.
They argue that the reported losses are largely accounting effects, particularly from currency revaluation, rather than indications of economic mismanagement.
“What is being described as a loss is largely the cost of stabilisation,” Majority voices have maintained.
On the claim of wealth transfer, they counter that improved macroeconomic conditions are already filtering through the system:
- Lower interest rates are expected to stimulate lending
- Reduced government borrowing is freeing up liquidity for private sector credit
They also emphasised that the BoG’s accounts were externally audited and fully disclosed, urging caution against political interference.
“Central bank independence is critical. We must avoid politicising its operations.”
In response to concerns about the gold programme, the government has indicated that future interventions will involve cost-sharing arrangements between the BoG and other state entities.
The Core Dispute
The debate ultimately reflects deeper disagreements over policy choices and economic trade-offs:
- Was the GHS 15.6 billion loss an investment in stability—or an avoidable cost?
- Did liquidity management policies support recovery—or disproportionately benefit banks?
- Does negative equity pose a real institutional risk—or is it manageable within central banking practice?
What Lies Ahead
The Minority has already escalated the issue with engagements with the International Monetary Fund as part of Ghana’s ongoing programme reviews.
Meanwhile, the government maintains that macroeconomic indicators validate its approach and that stability gains will increasingly translate into improved livelihoods.
The Bottom Line
For many Ghanaians, the debate goes beyond accounting frameworks. The central question remains whether recent macroeconomic gains—lower inflation, a stronger currency, and improved reserves—are translating into tangible improvements in living conditions.
As the policy arguments intensify, the real test may lie not in balance sheets, but in the everyday economy.
Source: parliamentnews360.com
