By Innocent Samuel Appiah
Political opponents have a duty that goes beyond partisan advantage by helping Ghana build durable institutions that can outlive any administration. I have heard opponents to the current administration questioned the kind of policies that is currently fueling Ghana’s economic stabilization. They forget to realize that the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) constitute that single most important fiscal decision Ghana has conceived in the Forth Republic. Therefore, whatever one’s political persuasion, the question is not whether GoldBod is politically convenient, but whether it is strategically valuable to Ghana’s economic stability and whether its mandate is capable of being strengthened through responsible oversight and reform.
In a democratic dispensation, disagreement is legitimate, but vilification without substantiation, smear campaigns that substitute rumour for evidence, and political messaging that misrepresents technical issues as moral failures do not contribute to national progress. They only deepen uncertainty, weaken confidence in public policy, and discourage the very domestic and international cooperation required to sustain macroeconomic recovery.
Ghana’s economic history has shown that the Cedi does not weaken randomly and that financial volatility is rarely solved by slogans. The Cedi’s cyclical pressures are tied to foreign exchange availability, reserve management, and the credibility of the broader fiscal and monetary framework. In that context, GoldBod is not an abstract political project; it is a structured attempt to professionalize the gold value chain, reduce leakage, and channel gold transactions through mechanisms that can improve visibility and governance.
A country that struggles with external financing cannot afford to treat such an instrument as expendable. Even where people raise questions about operational metrics, procurement processes, pricing arrangements, or programme design, those questions should be handled through audit, transparency, and constructive policy engagement, not through narratives that seek to discredit the institution itself.
If there are genuine concerns, these political opponents should lead with solutions: demand clarity on reporting scope, insist on consistent definitions when discussing figures, and support reforms that strengthen controls and accountability. But attacking the existence of GoldBod as if it is inherently illegitimate, or portraying it as a ready-made failure without showing the specific error and the corrected accounting, is not governance. It is political sabotage disguised as critique.
Moreover, Ghana cannot pretend that the macroeconomic settlement is finished. Exiting the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme, or reducing reliance on IMF facilities, is not a switch that can be turned off by political rhetoric. It is a process that depends on continued stability in reserves, inflation, exchange rate expectations, and the domestic financing environment. If GoldBod contributes to gold purchases, enhances reserve building, and supports the availability of foreign exchange, while also creating a platform for traceability and reduced smuggling, then it is a national asset that should be defended and improved, not undermined. The most constructive political posture is to help Ghana keep what is working while strengthening what needs correction. This is how institutions mature: through performance, scrutiny, and continuous improvement, not through destruction.
It is also essential to recognize that policy continuity is not the enemy of democracy. Public institutions should not become casualties of election cycles. When an administration inherits complex challenges such as debt burdens, inflationary pressures, foreign exchange constraints, and infrastructural backlogs, the priority must be to ensure stability rather than to indulge in retaliatory disruptions.
If the critics of the programme have a genuine plan to make life better for Ghanaians, that plan should be aligned with the realities of the economy. The proponents of a contrary narrative should explain how its approach will protect the Cedi, reduce inflation, and lower lending rates, particularly in a context where foreign exchange shortages and fiscal constraints continue to shape market behaviour. Criticism that merely seeks to dismantle GoldBod without presenting a credible alternative pathway for reserves, exchange rate management, and gold-sector governance is not a plan. It is only a critique without engineering.
Indeed, Ghana’s future should not be locked into repeated rounds of dependency simply because domestic institutions are treated as partisan battlegrounds. If the Cedi stabilizes, low inflation becomes sustainable, and lending rates gradually fall, it will not happen because of attack messages; it will happen because of credible governance, improved revenue channels, consistent macroeconomic discipline, and institutions that help Ghana generate and manage resources. GoldBod can be part of this stabilizing architecture.
Therefore, those peddling the losses narrative should choose the responsible path: support GoldBod’s work, demand accountability through proper channels, and propose reforms that strengthen traceability, governance, and operational effectiveness. If they believe GoldBod is flawed, let them show precisely how—using verifiable evidence, and not through insinuations that confuse the public.
Finally, it is important to be clear with the electorate. Ghanaians do not vote to become spectators in political conflict; they vote to secure stability, jobs, and affordable living. If GoldBod is strengthened and allowed to succeed, it can contribute to a more stable Cedi, improved reserve buffers, and a fiscal environment that reduces the need for constant external emergency financing.
If the country must go longer to the IMF, Ghana should negotiate and manage the process with stronger national capacity by taking the bull by the horn to develop its own institutions and resources rather than allowing internal undermining that weakens confidence in homegrown solutions. Naysayers should therefore stop unsubstantiated vilifications and smears, support GoldBod to succeed, and show Ghanaians a credible, constructive alternative agenda—one that truly improves their condition and builds institutions that will still stand long after slogans have faded.
