Economic policy analyst and entrepreneur Senyo Kwasi Hosi has weighed in on the public debate surrounding the reported US$214 million loss linked to Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP), arguing that the figure should not be interpreted as an economic failure.
According to Mr Hosi, the conversation around GOLDBOD has focused too narrowly on accounting figures, rather than the broader economic outcomes the policy was designed to achieve. He explains that while accounting losses are measured by revenue versus cost, economic policy must be assessed by its overall impact on stability, growth, and national welfare.
He noted that prior to the establishment of GOLDBOD, Ghana was losing a significant portion of its gold production through smuggling. A large share of gold produced locally was exported unofficially, weakening foreign exchange inflows and undermining currency stability. The introduction of GOLDBOD, he explained, was aimed at reversing this trend by centralising gold purchases and offering competitive pricing to discourage illegal trade.
According to Mr Hosi, this strategy led to a sharp increase in officially recorded gold exports, rising from 63.6 metric tonnes in 2024 to 101 metric tonnes in 2025. He said this improvement was not necessarily driven by increased production, but rather by better accounting and reduced smuggling, which strengthened foreign exchange inflows into the economy.
He added that the impact of these inflows became visible in the performance of the cedi. Ghana’s exchange rate, which averaged about GHS14.2 to the dollar in 2024, improved to approximately GHS12.53 in 2025, contributing to lower inflation and improved macroeconomic stability. Inflation, he noted, declined from 24 percent in 2024 to 6.3 percent by November 2025, according to official data.
Mr Hosi further pointed to the fiscal benefits arising from the stronger currency. Government savings from external debt servicing exceeded GHS6.2 billion, while savings on payments to Independent Power Producers amounted to more than GHS6.4 billion. In addition, reduced import costs translated into estimated savings of over GHS60 billion across the economy.
Within this context, he maintained that the reported GHS2.4 billion (US$214 million) cost linked to the DGPP should be seen as a policy expense rather than a loss. As he put it, “Simply put, ‘an accounting loss or financial loss is not an economic loss! So not all loss be loss and not all profit na benefit!’”
He also referenced the International Monetary Fund’s assessment, noting that while the IMF acknowledged the policy cost, it equally recognised Ghana’s improved reserve position and currency stability. He observed that the speed of the cedi’s recovery was unexpected, particularly within the framework of an IMF-supported programme.
According to Mr Hosi, Ghana’s experience highlights the importance of context-specific solutions and an understanding of local economic behaviour, particularly in addressing issues such as smuggling and informal market incentives.
He further indicated that while further reforms are necessary to sustain the gains made, the evidence so far shows that the program delivered measurable economic benefits. In his words, “Economic policy is not accounting; evaluating its impact requires a more holistic approach, or we risk knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
