Czar Alexander Leonel challenges Sammy Gyamfi over gold purchases, discounts, forex losses and GoldBod’s role under the DGPP
The Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) and its Chief Executive Officer, Sammy Gyamfi, are facing fresh questions over the reported US$1.7 billion loss associated with Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP), with political commentator The Czar Alexander Leonel demanding detailed answers on GoldBod’s role in the gold-sourcing and trading process.
In a strongly worded open letter addressed to Mr Gyamfi, Leonel questioned the apparent distinction being drawn between GoldBod’s regulatory and commercial functions and challenged the GoldBod CEO to explain precisely how the institution operated under the DGPP in 2025.
At the heart of the controversy is a simple question, according to Leonel:
Did GoldBod source gold for Ghana under the DGPP in 2025—yes or no?
If the answer is yes, he argues, GoldBod must explain how the programme generated such a substantial loss while simultaneously being presented as an important source of foreign exchange for the country.
THE GOLD SOURCING QUESTION
Leonel argues that GoldBod’s audited accounts primarily reflect revenue from activities such as licensing, assay and service fees, rather than necessarily capturing the full commercial economics of buying and selling gold as a commodity.
He further contends that GoldBod occupies an unusual position as both a regulator and commercial participant in Ghana’s gold industry.
Under the GoldBod Act, 2025 (Act 1140), GoldBod was established with extensive powers over the domestic gold market, including the licensing and organisation of gold-buying activities and the export of gold.
That dual role, Leonel argues, makes it imperative for the institution to provide complete transparency on the financial flows surrounding the DGPP.
WHERE DID THE $1.7 BILLION GO?
Leonel points to the International Monetary Fund’s discussion of the DGPP and argues that the reported losses were connected to several components, including discounts to exporters, assay and service fees, and—most significantly in his view—foreign-exchange valuation differences between the purchase and eventual sale of gold.
While acknowledging that GoldBod is entitled to receive legitimate assay and service fees, he says the public deserves a clear breakdown of the other costs.
How much was paid in discounts to exporters?
Who approved those discounts?
What was GoldBod’s precise role in the eventual sale of the gold?
At what stage were the foreign-exchange losses incurred?
These, Leonel argues, cannot be dismissed as irrelevant questions.
THE FOREX CLAIM
The controversy is further complicated by GoldBod’s public narrative about its contribution to Ghana’s foreign-exchange position.
Leonel challenges the GoldBod management to reconcile its claim of generating significant foreign exchange for Ghana with the losses reportedly associated with the gold-purchasing operation.
“If GoldBod sourced the gold and that gold was subsequently sold to generate forex,” the argument goes, “how can the institution completely separate itself from losses incurred in the process?”
The question is particularly important because the DGPP involved the use of state financial resources to purchase domestic gold.
STATE FUNDS, MONOPOLY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Leonel also raises questions about the structure of the arrangement, arguing that GoldBod’s dominant position in the domestic gold market places an even greater responsibility on management to account for every cedi and dollar involved.
His contention is that an institution benefiting from a statutory mandate, access to state resources and extensive control over gold purchasing and exports must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny when significant financial losses are reported.
He therefore calls for a comprehensive disclosure of:
The total volume and value of gold purchased under the DGPP;
The prices paid to local suppliers;
The prices at which the gold was subsequently sold;
Discounts granted to exporters or counterparties;
Assay and service charges;
Foreign-exchange movements between purchase and sale;
Financing costs and other operational expenses; and
The precise allocation of the reported losses.
“WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?”
Leonel’s most serious challenge concerns responsibility.
If GoldBod was the institution sourcing gold for the state under the programme, he argues, it cannot simply highlight its regulatory revenues while distancing itself from the commercial losses generated by the same operation.
The issue, he says, is not whether GoldBod generated revenue from licensing, assay or service fees.
Rather, the fundamental question is whether the institution exercised adequate commercial controls over the purchase, financing, pricing and disposal of gold acquired with public resources.
CALL FOR A FULL PROBE
Leonel is therefore calling for a transparent examination of the DGPP’s operations and the circumstances surrounding the reported US$1.7 billion loss.
He argues that the matter should not degenerate into political insults or personal attacks, but should instead be resolved through documentary evidence, audited transaction records and independent scrutiny.
The GoldBod management, he says, owes Ghanaians a clear explanation.
The question remains stark:
Did GoldBod source gold for Ghana in 2025 under the DGPP?
If the answer is yes, then the next question is unavoidable:
How did the programme lose US$1.7 billion, and who ultimately bears responsibility for that loss?
Until those questions are comprehensively answered, the controversy surrounding GoldBod, the DGPP and Ghana’s gold-for-forex strategy is unlikely to disappear.
