Policy and data analyst Alfred Appiah has sparked a thought-provoking debate over what he describes as a glaring contradiction in the public interpretation and framing of the cedi’s recent appreciation and its impact on Ghana’s economy.
Alfred Appiah, amid the heated debate, cannot comprehend why gains arising from exchange rate movements are widely celebrated when they improve Ghana’s debt profile, yet quickly dismissed when the same currency movements produce losses on the books of the Bank of Ghana.
The thrust of his comments centers on what is becoming an increasingly complex national conversation about economic performance, accounting realities, and how financial narratives are shaped in the public space.
In a post cited by The High Street Journal, he narrated that “When we talk about Ghana’s public debt declining significantly between 2024 and 2025, a large part of that reduction is due to exchange rate movements.”
According to him, while the domestic component of Ghana’s debt actually increased from 309.8 billion cedis at the end of 2024 to 333.8 billion cedis at the end of 2025, the appreciation of the cedi significantly reduced the cedi value of the country’s external debt.
As a result, the external debt component reportedly fell from 416.8 billion cedis to 307.2 billion cedis when converted into local currency. That outcome has been widely praised as evidence of sound economic management and improving macroeconomic stability.
However, he argues that the celebration reveals only one side of the story. He points out that the very same appreciation of the cedi also affects institutions that hold foreign currency assets, including the Bank of Ghana.
Alfred Appiah explains that when the cedi strengthens, the local currency value of foreign-denominated reserves and assets held by the Bank of Ghana declines when translated into cedis. These reductions are then recorded as losses in the Bank’s financial statements.
Yet, he observes that these losses are often brushed aside as mere “translation losses” with little broader significance. The contradiction, he argues, exposes a troubling inconsistency in how economic outcomes are interpreted depending on the political or institutional context.
“The same appreciation of the currency means that institutions like the Bank of Ghana, which hold assets in foreign currencies, would record declines in the cedi value of those assets. These then appear as losses on the Bank’s books and are often dismissed as mere translation losses,” he remarked.
To put it practically, for instance, a person earning income in dollars may suddenly realize that the cedi value of their savings has dropped because the local currency has strengthened. On paper, they appear “poorer” in cedi terms, even though the amount of dollars they hold has not changed.
At the same time, another person repaying a dollar-denominated loan benefits immensely because fewer cedis are needed to settle the same obligation.
He says both outcomes are caused by the same exchange rate movement, yet society often praises one side while dismissing the other.
“Why do we celebrate the translation gains arising from currency appreciation as evidence of sound economic management, while downplaying the losses that arise from that very same appreciation?, he queried
Alfred Appiah’s comments, therefore, challenge policymakers, economists, and the public to adopt a more balanced and intellectually consistent interpretation of economic data rather than selectively amplifying figures that support preferred narratives.
