The Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) has been accused of recording a US$214 million loss, but experts say the figure represents a deliberate policy cost with significant economic benefits for the country.
Established in 2025, GoldBod centralises Ghana’s gold trade, boosts official foreign exchange inflows, and accumulates gold reserves. In its first year, the agency has sharply reduced gold smuggling, increasing official artisanal and small-scale mining exports from 63.6 metric tons in 2024 to 101 metric tons in 2025.
Entrepreneur and economic policy analyst Senyo K. Hosi argues that while the $214 million is technically an accounting loss, it should be viewed in the broader context of economic gains. The programme has helped raise Ghana’s foreign reserves from USD8.98 billion in 2024 to USD11.12 billion by October 2025, with projections of USD13 billion by year-end.
The appreciation of the cedi, from an average of GH¢14.2/USD in 2024 to GH¢12.53/USD in 2025, has generated substantial fiscal savings. External debt service payments fell by over GH¢6.2 billion (USD560 million), payments to independent power producers dropped by GH¢6.45 billion (USD582 million), and projected savings on imports exceed GH¢60 billion, boosting real spending power for Ghanaians.
Senyo Hosi explains that the “loss” arises partly from GoldBod paying world-market rates to local miners and offering bonuses to discourage smuggling. This strategy ensured gold was sold through official channels rather than foreign networks, strengthening reserves and generating foreign exchange inflows.
The International Monetary Fund has acknowledged the programme’s success, noting that Ghana reached its 2028 reserve coverage target in 2025. Hosi stresses that economic policies should be evaluated by their outcomes rather than accounting measures, noting the programme has also helped reduce inflation from 24% in 2024 to 6.3% by November 2025.
“The DGPP has delivered stability, fiscal savings, and inflation reduction,” Hosi said. “The $214 million is not a loss but a policy cost whose benefits far outweigh its financial cost.”