Innocent Samuel Appiah writes: Analysis of Sammy Gyamfi’s Statement in Response to Accusations by Afenyo-Markin at the Government Accountability Series
…A Cautious, Evidence-Forward Response Aimed at Restoring Public Confidence in GoldBod
On Wednesday, August 19, 2026, Ghana Gold Board’s (GoldBod) CEO Sammy Gyamfi took his turn at the Government Accountability Series at the seat of Government to address allegations by the Minority Leader in Parliament, Alexander Afenyo-Markin and some members of the New patriotic Party (NPP) regarding the operations of GoldBod.
The engagement with the media basically sought to address a number of “baseless allegations and deliberate falsehoods concerning the operations and financial health of the GoldBod that have been propagated by certain individuals in recent times. Of particular concern is the persistent campaign of lies being waged by Alexander AfenyoMarkin and his ilk against the GoldBod over the past couple of months.”
Mr. Gyamfi’s statement is best understood as a structured effort to achieve three things at once: (1) rebut allegations with claimed audited and institutional sources, (2) reframe the dispute away from “losses” into a discussion of roles, contracts, and valuation effects, and (3) shift the moral and political narrative by portraying Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s interventions as repetitive and deliberately misleading. The overall tone, though strongly worded, shows a communications strategy that tries to combine legal-style argumentation with public reassurance.
Opening objective: reassert legitimacy and mandate
From the start, Mr. Gyamfi places GoldBod as a national instrument established to “create real value” and maximize benefits from Ghana’s gold resources. This framing is not merely ceremonial; it sets the expectation that GoldBod’s actions should be evaluated in the context of its statutory purpose and performance. By emphasizing “successful implementation of our mandate,” the statement tries to build a foundation of institutional credibility before dealing with controversy.
Significantly, the GoldBod CEO acknowledges the media relationship and presents the event as a continuation of public engagement “on matters of national interest.” That approach matters because it signals that GoldBod is not hiding behind closed doors—it is willing to confront criticism publicly. Even if listeners may disagree with the substance, this rhetorical choice gives the statement an air of openness.
Core strategy: dispute the claims, not just the person
Mr. Gyamfi constantly labels the allegations as “baseless,” “falsehoods,” and a “campaign of lies.” While the language is combative, the content is still primarily structured as a claim-by-claim refutation. That is a meaningful feature: the statement does not rely only on attacking motives; it attempts to supply a counter-narrative using specific financial and procedural references.
The structure—“First… Second… In summary… Claim A… Answer… Claim B… Answer…”—moves the discourse toward a forensic style. That format does two things: it helps listeners follow a sequence of arguments without getting lost in generalities, and tt gives the impression of systematic reasoning, as though each allegation is being tested against documentary and logical standards. For a public audience, this “systematic rebuttal” style can feel more reassuring than a mere denial.
Emphasis on the Auditor-General and audited results
The press statement’s strongest factual pillar is the claim that GoldBod’s Audited Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2025 show no operational loss, citing an operational surplus/profit and an overall surplus/profit figure in the billions.
In positive terms, the CEO’s approach here is to anchor the dispute in an external, independent mechanism: the Auditor-General. Whether every listener fully accepts the interpretation, referencing audited financial statements is a credible method of responding to “you made losses” claims. It also implicitly challenges opponents to do more than assert—namely, to engage with verifiable official documents.
Just as important is Mr. Gyamfi’s assertion about audit access and the absence of adverse findings. He attempts to pre-empt the classic response from critics: “the auditor didn’t have full access.” In doing so, the statement tries to close the gap between allegation and evidence.
Strategic pivot: losses under DGPP are framed as policy design + valuation effects
A major part of Mr. Gyamfi’s rebuttal is about scope and responsibility, and not merely whether losses occurred, but who is responsible and why the losses appear in accounting terms.
He addresses the shift from earlier allegations about GoldBod losses to a later narrative involving the IMF report and the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP). The GoldBod CEO argued that critics misread or misrepresent the IMF framing, especially the point that losses are linked to “scaling up” and that “accounting losses partly reflect valuation effects.”
Communications-wise, this is a classic dispute tactic: move the conversation from operational blaming to explanation of economic mechanics. By reframing DGPP losses as accounting/valuation outcomes driven by programme scaling and exchange rate translation, Mr. Gyamfi is effectively offering a “contextual interpretation” rather than denying economic strain outright.
Legal/contract logic: GoldBod as buying agent, not seller
The GoldBod CEO’s argument recurrently returns to contractual roles: GoldBod/PMMC as one of the buying agents whose obligations cover purchase on agreed terms, with no role in the sale decisions under DGPP in the way critics imply. He breaks the reasoning into structured “claims”:
- Claim A: responsibility because GoldBod purchased/aggregated gold → Answer: GoldBod was an inherited buying-agent role under a prior contract; it did not sell or determine sale terms.
- Claim B: responsibility because GoldBod received fees → Answer: fees were legitimate, contract-based, and comparatively small; losses must be attributed to the principal’s sales economics, not service compensation.
- Claim C: DGPP losses result from spread between forex bureau purchase rates and reference rates → Answer: buying terms were contractual and predated GoldBod’s existence; spread/valuation effects reflect accounting translation.
- Claim D: GoldBod trade model/of-take discounts → Answer: timing and role limits; claimed that trade model implementation began later, and buying agent status excluded discount-setting.
This approach is positive in tone of governance communication because it signals “role clarity.” The audience is given a coherent narrative: GoldBod’s responsibilities are limited; critics are attributing outcomes beyond those responsibilities.
Fees argument: reframing “service cost” as not a cause of losses
Mr. Gyamfi also addresses the emotional appeal behind criticism— “a business paid fees shouldn’t be blamed for the principal’s losses.” He attempts to convert that moral intuition into an economic explanation: assay fee and service fee are framed as cost-recovery and operational logistics; he argues the fees are a small proportion compared to the magnitude of the reported loss figure; he claims buyers/exporters paid the same assay fee historically; and he challenges critics to explain why losses were allegedly connected to the same structure when GoldBod did not yet exist.
Even if one does not accept every arithmetic implication, the argumentative method is sound: he is trying to show that the fee explanation does not logically follow from the reported loss mechanics.
Conclusion: offering parliamentary challenge and accountability posture
Mr. Gyamfi closes the event by challenging Afenyo-Markin to invite GoldBod before parliamentary committees and insisting the Board has “nothing to hide.” This is a constructive governance posture: it turns a media controversy into a procedural accountability pathway.
Even more, he attempts to separate GoldBod accountability from blame-shifting to the Bank of Ghana, arguing that critics should substantiate claims about GoldBod directly rather than rely on tangential institutions.
Overall assessment
As a public statement, the GoldBod CEO’s response is evidence-oriented in structure (audited statements, audit access, IMF interpretation) and logic-oriented in argument (role limitation, contract provisions, valuation effects, fees as cost recovery rather than loss causation). Politically, it is also a narrative contest: it portrays critics as repeatedly incorrect and incentivized by smear tactics rather than genuine accountability.
The press statement’s “positive” strength lies in its attempt to convert allegations into a disciplined debate of responsibilities, documents, and economic mechanics. And if the intended goal is to reassure supporters, defend institutional legitimacy, and demand evidence in parliamentary forums, the statement largely accomplishes those aims.
