There has been a lot of political noise around page 10 of the IMF report, but the wording on the page itself is much simpler than some people are making it sound.

Page 10 is explicit: the losses were incurred by the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) when it was being run by the Bank of Ghana, not by GoldBod.
The IMF's own heading reads:
"DGPP operations have generated significant losses for the BoG."

Not GoldBod.

Not Sammy Gyamfi.

Not GoldBod's management.

The losses belonged to the BoG.

The IMF says the losses arose largely because the central bank bought gold at one exchange rate and accounted for it at another, creating accounting and exchange-rate losses on its books.

That is not unusual for central banks.

Across the world, governments and central banks routinely spend billions defending currencies, stabilising exchange rates and building reserves.

The United States Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and many other monetary authorities have all recorded large balance-sheet losses at different times while pursuing broader economic objectives.

A country can lose money on reserve accumulation today and still benefit tomorrow through stronger reserves, a more stable currency and improved investor confidence.

It is similar to a homeowner spending money to reinforce a leaking roof before the rainy season. The expenditure is real, but the objective is protection and long-term stability.

In Ghana's case, the DGPP was designed to strengthen gold reserves and support the cedi.

What is often omitted by critics is what the IMF says next.

Paragraph 14 states that from July 1, 2026, the programme was transferred from the BoG to GoldBod, and that the BoG would no longer be exposed to those financial risks.

The IMF further notes that transaction costs were already falling significantly and were expected to reduce further.

In other words:
• BoG recorded the losses.
• GoldBod inherited the programme later.
• The IMF expects costs under the new arrangement to decline.

That is a completely different claim from saying "GoldBod lost $1.7 billion."
The IMF never says that.

In fact, the report treats GoldBod as part of the solution to reducing the costs associated with the programme, not as the institution responsible for the losses recorded before the transfer.

The distinction is simple:
BoG's losses are BoG's losses.

GoldBod's job is what happens after the handover.

By Charles McCarthy