The Minority in Parliament has hit back at Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi, arguing that his defence of the institution has confirmed rather than rebutted concerns over losses associated with the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP).In a statement dated Wednesday, August 19, 2026, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin said Mr Gyamfi did not dispute the International Monetary Fund’s reported US$1.7 billion loss under the programme in 2025, but only challenged responsibility for the loss.“First, the loss is admitted. The Chief Executive does not dispute the IMF’s finding that there is a loss of US$1.7 billion (22 billion Ghana cedis) under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025,” Mr Afenyo-Markin stated.He argued that regardless of which state institution ultimately carried the loss, the matter involved public funds and therefore required an explanation.“This is public money, whichever State balance sheet it sits on,” he said.Mr Afenyo-Markin also challenged Mr Gyamfi’s claim that GoldBod recorded an operational surplus of GH¢907 million in 2025.According to the Minority Leader, Mr Gyamfi disclosed that GoldBod accounted for about GH¢133 billion in advances under the DGPP and received an assay fee of 0.258 per cent and a service fee of 0.5 per cent.Based on those figures, he estimated that GoldBod earned approximately GH¢1 billion in fees from the programme.He therefore argued that the agency fees were higher than the GH¢907 million operational surplus being highlighted by the GoldBod CEO.“The plain implication of his own numbers is that the operational surplus he is celebrating is smaller than the fee income he collected from a programme that lost the state 22 billion Ghana Cedis,” he said.“Strip out the agency fees and there is no operational surplus to speak of.”Mr Afenyo-Markin said Mr Gyamfi had not adequately addressed that issue.The Minority Leader also accused GoldBod of taking credit for the economic benefits associated with the expansion of the domestic gold purchasing programme while distancing itself from the reported financial losses.He cited claims that the scaling-up of the programme contributed to a 41 per cent appreciation of the cedi, an increase in Ghana’s reserves from US$8.9 billion to US$13 billion and a reduction in inflation.“An institution that claims authorship of the benefits cannot describe itself as a passive agent when the costs are counted,” he said.Minority questions GoldBod funding arrangementsMr Afenyo-Markin further raised concerns about GoldBod’s funding arrangements.He noted that responsibility for implementing the Ghana Agriculture and Natural Resources Platform (GANRAP) had reportedly moved from the Bank of Ghana to the Ministry of Finance in July 2026, while GoldBod was seeking to raise funds independently from August.“Three funding arrangements in six months is not a settled model. We view this with curious eyes,” he said.Minority criticises ‘brothel’ remarkThe Minority Leader also criticised the language used by Mr Gyamfi during his earlier response to the allegations.He took particular exception to the GoldBod CEO’s reference to a “brothel” in describing the Minority’s narrative.“Finally, a word on tone. The Chief Executive’s reference to a brothel does not belong in a statement issued by a Public Officer accounting for public funds,” Mr Afenyo-Markin said.“Ghanaians asked for figures. They were given insults. The figures are still outstanding.”Minority to pursue parliamentary actionThe Minority says it intends to proceed with its motion in Parliament to compel GoldBod’s management to account fully for the financial implications of the DGPP when the House resumes.The latest response deepens the dispute between Mr Afenyo-Markin and Mr Gyamfi over the interpretation of the IMF’s findings, GoldBod’s financial performance and responsibility for losses associated with Ghana’s domestic gold purchasing programme.The IMF’s Sixth Country Report, No. 26/213, issued in August 2026, remains at the centre of the disagreement, with the two sides offering sharply different interpretations of what the report says about the reported losses and GoldBod’s role in the programme.