Although the Bank of Ghana (BoG) has outrightly dismissed claims of planning to sell the new office complex of the Central Bank, it should be noted that this is not the first time this issue has come up.
The Finance Minister, Dr. Casiel Ato Forson, proposed such a move as far back as March 2025 when the issues about recapitalizing the Central Bank were rife. The Central Bank, at the time, was seeking a recapitalization amount of GH¢53 billion.
The Finance Minister firmly rejected the idea of using taxpayer funds to bail out the Bank of Ghana (BoG) after the central bank recorded a ¢60 billion deficit, resulting in a negative equity position. He insisted that BoG must find internal solutions rather than relying on public funds for a ¢53 billion recapitalisation.
“First of all, they have to look within. You know, you’ve seen their new Head Office, a very big building. They have a choice—a choice to sale and lease back if they want. They have to look within and cut expenditure and reduce events. The taxpayer cannot afford ¢53 billion,” he noted.
Although the BoG has refuted the recent rumours, the option is worth considering, given the current capital position and the financial health of the Central Bank.
What is a Sale-Leaseback Arrangement?
The purported arrangement in transactional technical terms is referred to as “Sale-Leaseback”. A sale-leaseback is an arrangement in which a company sells an asset, such as real estate, vehicles or manufacturing equipment, and then immediately leases it back from the purchaser.
In simple terms, it means a company decides to sell its own asset and then rent the same asset back. To many experts, it is a smart balance-sheet management tool that could unlock billions of cedis tied up in bricks and concrete.
Reasons BoG Could Consider Such a Move?
The most obvious answer to this question is liquidity and capital management. The new headquarters represents a substantial amount of capital estimated at around $260 million. Such a huge amount of capital is tied up in a non-income-generating asset.
Many analysts say it is a liability on the books of the Central Bank sitting on the left side. From a financial perspective, a building may be valuable on paper, but it does not necessarily generate cash flows.
At the same time, the BoG is facing serious capital constraints. The bank, in recent years, has been grappling with significant balance-sheet losses arising from the financial sector cleanup and the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme. Even in 2025, the bank recorded huge losses in its domestic gold purchasing, inflation management, and exchange rate issues, eroding part of its capital.
For many analysts, considering the situation of the Bank currently, monetizing that asset can provide an immediate cash injection. The sale-leaseback could provide an alternative source of funds without direct taxpayer recapitalization.
The argument is similar to a household sitting in a GH¢10 million mansion but struggling to meet financial obligations. The house may be valuable, but the value is locked up. Selling it and leasing it back could free cash for more productive purposes while preserving the ability to continue living there.
The Good: Unlocking Capital and Improving Financial Flexibility
The idea, there is no doubt, could improve the Bank’s liquidity position almost immediately. The proceeds from the sale could strengthen the central bank’s capital position, improve key balance-sheet metrics, and reduce pressure for government recapitalization.
It could also provide resources that can be deployed toward core central banking functions rather than being trapped in a fixed asset.
Moreover, from a capital allocation perspective, the move makes economic and accounting sense. Why should a central bank have billions of cedis tied up in a building or available for deployment elsewhere?
In corporate finance, ownership of real estate is often viewed as less important than efficient use of capital. Many organizations prefer to own their core business and lease their premises. The logic is that capital should be invested where it generates the greatest economic return.
A sale-leaseback can also improve reported liquidity and financial flexibility while allowing uninterrupted operations. Staff remains in the same building, the institution continues functioning as normal, and the asset is transformed into usable cash.
The Bad: Trading Ownership for Long-Term Obligations
The biggest criticism is that such a transaction solves a short-term problem while potentially creating a long-term one. Once sold, the headquarters would no longer belong to the Bank. Instead, the institution would face recurring lease payments that could run for decades.
Critics argue that selling a newly completed headquarters only to rent it back may ultimately prove more expensive than retaining ownership. What begins as a liquidity solution today could become a significant recurring expenditure tomorrow.
There is also the issue of valuation. The cost of the building, in times past, generated heated debate about whether the country had value for money. The building was tagged as overly expensive and hence raises the question of whether the country will be able to recoup the investment and make a profit on the sale if the edifice is independently valued.
There is also the issue of timing. Selling the asset shortly after its completion could raise questions about whether the original investment decision was properly aligned with the Bank’s long-term financial strategy.
The Ugly: Strategic and Political Risks
The most sensitive concern is whether a central bank’s headquarters should be treated like an ordinary commercial property at all. Unlike a typical office building, a central bank headquarters carries national, institutional, and security significance.
Critics argue that such assets transcend pure financial calculations and should remain under direct state ownership. Moreover, without safeguards, the transaction could become vulnerable to undervaluation, favoritism, or poor value for money.
The Bottomline
It should be noted that sale-leasebacks are an accepted practice in the corporate world globally. Even many mining and oil companies practice it. Some of them do not even outright purchase the equipment and machinery they use. They prefer to lease them and pay rent since outright purchase locks up significant capital.
Although the BoG says it is not considering such a move, should the Central Bank in the future decide to explore this path, it should be noted that it is a double-edged sword that must be executed with tact and carefulness.
