The Minority Caucus has raised alarm over what it describes as policy contradictions in the government’s gold-for-reserves initiative, warning that financial losses, regulatory confusion, and weak enforcement against illegal mining threaten Ghana’s economic future and international credibility.
While reaffirming support for the policy, the Minority stressed that it was initiated under the previous administration and must be properly managed. “We are not opposed to the gold-for-reserves policy, but we have two major concerns,” they said.
The first, according to the Caucus, is the dual role of the Gold Board as both regulator and operator, which they argue incentivises galamsey. “Our water bodies have been polluted, and organized labour has warned that galamsey activities have worsened,” the Minority said, accusing government of focusing on “PR gimmicks rather than substance.”
They questioned whether the gold being purchased is legally sourced. “They tell us how many tons of gold they have bought, but they fail to tell us whether there are measures to fight illicit gold,” the Caucus added.
Secondly, the Minority cited an IMF-reported $214 million loss linked to the programme, blaming the Bank of Ghana for failing to protect public funds. “What is happening amounts to a financial loss to the state,” they declared, rejecting claims that such losses are an unavoidable “economic cost.”
Beyond mining, the Minority linked domestic governance failures to weakening foreign policy standing, referencing Ghana’s inclusion on a US immigrant visa restriction list. “Through weak and reactive diplomacy, this government has allowed Ghana to be lumped into a penalty list,” they said, warning of threats to remittances estimated at $1.5–$2.5 billion annually.
They also criticised the collapse of public transport and called for an emergency restoration of the state bus fleet.
“Real sovereignty in diplomacy is built on domestic accountability,” the Minority stressed, arguing that Ghana cannot project moral authority abroad while tolerating “opaque, loss-making schemes” and environmental destruction at home.
