Revealed: Ghana's GH¢2bn Loss from Gold-for-Fuel Programme

The Bank of Ghana has confirmed that the much-touted Gold-for-Oil (G4O) programme has resulted in total losses of over GH¢2.1 billion, prompting its termination in March 2025. Introduced as a bold alternative to stabilise fuel prices and ease pressure on the cedi, the initiative has now come under scrutiny for both its financial cost and the lack of transparency surrounding its operations.

Launched in December 2022 and formally rolled out in January 2023, the G4O programme was conceived as a strategic response to the country’s worsening economic situation. With fuel prices surging to record highs—diesel reaching GH¢23 per litre and petrol selling at GH¢17 per litre by November 2022—combined with a rapidly depreciating cedi and falling foreign exchange reserves, the government explored unconventional measures to address the crisis.

The central idea behind G4O was to bypass the reliance on the U.S. dollar for petroleum imports. Instead, Ghana would leverage its gold reserves, accumulated through a domestic gold purchase programme launched in 2021. Under this initiative, the Bank of Ghana bought gold in cedis from local miners through the Precious Minerals Marketing Company (PMMC), now known as GoldBOD. The gold was refined and sold internationally by contracted brokers, who deposited the proceeds into the Bank’s offshore accounts for the purchase of petroleum products.

The expectation was that this mechanism would ease demand for dollars, help stabilise the exchange rate, and reduce domestic fuel prices—all while conserving foreign reserves.

While the initial months of the programme saw some success in moderating fuel prices and slowing cedi depreciation, the long-term financial cost proved unsustainable. According to the Bank of Ghana’s financial disclosures, the programme recorded a GH¢317 million loss in 2023 and a staggering GH¢1.82 billion in 2024. These losses amounted to approximately 45% of the GH¢4.69 billion the central bank injected into the programme.

On March 13, 2025, the Bank officially ended the G4O initiative, citing the heavy financial losses as the primary reason for its closure.

Despite its ambitious goals, the Gold-for-Oil programme has drawn criticism for operating with limited oversight and unclear accountability. The arrangement did not receive parliamentary approval, with the government maintaining that it was a central bank operation and not an executive policy—thus bypassing legislative scrutiny.

Furthermore, several critical aspects of the programme remain undisclosed. Key details such as the volume of gold traded, the identities and selection criteria of gold brokers, the commissions and fees paid, and the exact quantities of fuel imported have not been made public. This lack of transparency has raised concerns about governance and potential inefficiencies or mismanagement.

The central bank has attributed the bulk of the GH¢2.1 billion loss to foreign exchange factors, though it remains unclear how much was lost through fees, poor pricing, or logistical inefficiencies.

By late 2023, then-Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta reported that the G4O scheme accounted for about 30% of national fuel imports. However, updates on the programme’s performance became sparse until the Bank’s 2024 financial report revealed the full extent of the losses.

While the programme may have delivered temporary relief by reducing dollar demand and stabilising fuel prices, analysts argue that these short-term benefits came at a high long-term cost. The fuel was delivered domestically, but the foreign currency used to pay for it remained offshore, offering no direct support to Ghana’s foreign exchange reserves or local liquidity.

In hindsight, the Gold-for-Oil programme stands as a cautionary tale of policy improvisation under economic duress. Without full transparency and robust oversight, even well-intentioned strategies can result in unintended consequences. Ghana’s attempt to trade gold for energy may have eased a crisis in the short term—but it ultimately left the central bank with a multibillion-cedi deficit and more questions than answers.