The Minority in Parliament has raised concerns over what it describes as state capture and systemic rent-seeking in the operations of GoldBod.
The group is demanding full public disclosure on the role of Bawa-Rock Limited, the company allegedly granted exclusive rights to aggregate artisanal gold under the Gold-for-Reserves programme.
Addressing a press briefing on Monday, the Minority questioned the identity, ownership structure, and selection process of Alhaji Bawa and Bawa-Rock Ltd.
The Ofoase Ayirebi MP, Mr Oppong Nkrumah asked why the company emerged as the sole licensed aggregator in a sector traditionally driven by competition to ensure fair pricing and transparency.
“There’s a person known as Alhaji Bawa of Bawa Rock Limited. We bring to the attention of the Ghanaian people the role of his company in becoming the only aggregator licensed by the Gold Board to purchase all artisanal gold directly for the Gold Board from suppliers across the country.
A de facto monopoly has been created in this industry where competition used to exist and used to ensure fair pricing, transparency, and the prevention of rent-seeking.
“Who is benefiting from this deliberate monopoly? Who selected Bawa Rock Limited, and what criteria were used? Was it competitive? Who are the beneficial owners of this entity? These are questions the public deserves answers to,” he said.
The Minority linked the alleged monopoly to the $214 million loss reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) under Ghana’s Gold-for-Reserves programme within just nine months of 2025.
According to the caucus, the headline figure masks a deeper structural problem in how the scheme is designed and implemented.
They explained that while GoldBod pays small-scale miners at global market prices and prevailing forex rates to remain competitive, it subsequently sells foreign exchange proceeds to the Bank of Ghana at weaker interbank rates—effectively passing exchange-rate losses onto the central bank.
“This is not a market fluctuation problem,” the Minority insisted. “It is a system designed to make the State bleed while intermediaries remain protected.”
Recalling the original intent of the Gold-for-Reserves policy, the Minority said the programme was conceived as a sovereign reserve-building tool, not a commercial trading venture. Under the initial design, Ghana’s gold reserves reportedly increased from 8.7 tonnes to 31 tonnes within two years, without incurring losses.
However, the caucus argued that under the current administration, the Bank of Ghana has ceded its mandate to GoldBod, which now operates primarily as a gold trading entity. Despite what the Minority described as “unprecedented volumes” of gold passing through GoldBod, national reserves have reportedly increased by only seven tonnes, from 31 to 38 tonnes.
“This is not prioritisation of reserves; it is prioritisation of rent-seeking,” the Minority stated.
Beyond the financial implications, the Minority also raised alarm over the environmental cost of the scheme. They accused GoldBod of failing to meet OECD traceability standards, arguing that the State’s gold-buying operations risk becoming a laundering channel for gold sourced from illegal and environmentally destructive mining activities.
According to the caucus, forests are being degraded, rivers polluted with mercury and cyanide, and cocoa farms destroyed, while proceeds from such activities are allegedly sanitised through State-sanctioned purchases
The Minority further criticised what it called the dismissive posture of both the Bank of Ghana and GoldBod leadership, citing public statements downplaying the losses despite IMF data submitted by the government itself.
“Ghanaians are not fools,” the caucus said. “We recognise incompetence, and we know arrogance when we hear it.
The Minority reiterated its call for full parliamentary scrutiny, including public disclosure of all contracts, licensing arrangements, pricing formulas, and foreign-exchange mechanisms linked to GoldBod’s operations.
They warned that unless urgent corrective action is taken, Ghana risks long-term financial, environmental, and institutional damage.
About the Author
