Accra, May 3, GNA – The Bank of Ghana (BoG) has rejected claims by the New Patriotic Party Minority Caucus on its 2025 audited accounts, describing them as misleading.
The response follows Sunday’s press conference by the Minority Caucus after the release of the Bank’s 2025 audited accounts, at which it questioned the credibility of the figures and the Bank’s financial position.
In response, the Central Bank indicated that the Minority’s interpretation of the accounts risked creating unnecessary alarm and distorting public understanding of the Bank’s financial position.
The BoG explained that the claim that a reported surplus of GH¢5.5 billion was artificially created through a GH¢9.6 billion gain from gold sales reflected a misunderstanding of reserve management. It noted that central banks globally actively manage assets, including gold, and that gains from such transactions were legitimate and fully recognised income, even if non-recurring.
It stated that rebalancing gold reserves to realise gains was a standard practice aimed at strengthening liquidity and supporting macroeconomic stability, especially in periods of external financing constraints and exchange rate pressures.
The Bank rejected suggestions that it was insolvent, explaining that central bank solvency was not assessed in the same way as commercial institutions. It said removing the GH¢9.6 billion gold gain to construct a deficit was artificial and inconsistent with accepted accounting and central banking frameworks.
On claims that 50 per cent of gold reserves had been sold to cover losses, the BoG said the audited accounts showed no evidence of distress liquidation, but rather measured portfolio adjustments. It added that ongoing domestic gold purchase programmes contradicted assertions of reserve depletion.
Addressing allegations that the Bank understated its losses, the BoG clarified that the official audited loss for 2025 stood at GH¢15.63 billion, derived from total operating income of GH¢22.28 billion and expenses of GH¢37.91 billion.
It explained that attempts by the Minority to combine this figure with GH¢19.3 billion recorded as other comprehensive income to produce higher “true loss” figures were incorrect, as the two categories were distinct under standard accounting practice.
The Bank noted that other comprehensive income comprised non-cash items such as exchange rate differences and valuation changes, which did not reflect operational performance and could not be treated as realised losses.
It dismissed claims of accounting manipulation, indicating that the financial statements were externally audited, fully disclosed, and compliant with the applicable reporting framework.
On concerns about rising negative equity, which increased to about GH¢93 billion, the BoG said this reflected cumulative balance sheet effects, including the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme and exchange rate movements, rather than a single-year loss.
The Bank emphasised that central banks could operate effectively with negative equity due to statutory backing and sovereign guarantees, noting that such situations were not uncommon internationally.
Responding to assertions that losses worsened due to policy reversals, the BoG said the developments were largely driven by macroeconomic stabilisation measures, including exchange rate revaluation effects and costs associated with monetary policy operations.
It indicated that the narrowing of losses in 2024 was influenced by temporary factors and did not represent a sustained recovery trend, contrary to claims by the Minority.
On the issue of accounting standards, the Bank clarified that while the financial statements incorporated International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) principles, certain treatments were guided by statutory requirements under the Bank of Ghana Act, 2002 (Act 612).
It explained that the auditors, KPMG, issued an unmodified opinion on the accounts and that the reference to an “Emphasis of Matter” did not indicate any wrongdoing or qualification.
The BoG addressed concerns about the GH¢16.7 billion cost of open market operations (OMO), stating that the figure represented the cost of liquidity sterilisation in a high-interest rate environment as part of efforts to reduce inflation.
It noted that such costs were expected when central banks deployed market-based instruments to absorb excess liquidity and stabilise the economy, adding that there was no credible way to achieve large-scale disinflation without incurring such expenses.
The Bank rejected claims that policy changes, including adjustments to the Cash Reserve Ratio and reserving requirements, led to avoidable costs, explaining that the shift towards market-based tools was consistent with global best practice and necessary for effective monetary policy implementation.
On assertions that interest payments to banks amounted to a wealth transfer, the BoG said such payments were a standard feature of monetary policy operations, used to control liquidity and anchor interest rates, rather than a diversion of public funds.
It added that tight credit conditions and reduced lending to the private sector were expected outcomes of disinflation policies, influenced by high interest rates, credit risk, and broader macroeconomic adjustments.
The Bank acknowledged concerns about economic conditions but maintained that stabilising inflation and the exchange rate was a necessary foundation for sustainable growth, job creation, and improved livelihoods.
It stressed that the figures cited by the Minority were fully disclosed in the audited accounts, and that the issue at stake was interpretation rather than transparency.
GNA
Edited by Beatrice Asamani Savage