Ghana’s controversial Gold for Oil programme may have ended, but the financial burden it left behind is still looming, writer and anti-corruption advocate Kay Cudjoe has warned.
In an article titled “Gold for Oil is Dead, But the Bill Remains: Who Pays for Ghana’s Costliest ‘Innovation’?”, he accused the government of marketing a failed scheme as a patriotic revolution while quietly racking up losses and shielding key details from the public.
“We were told a story. That Ghana would no longer beg the dollar to power our engines and light our markets. That we would lift our gold like a shield and import fuel without kneeling to the greenback. It sounded bold. It sounded patriotic. But it was a story,” Cudjoe wrote.
Launched in late 2022 and officially terminated in March 2025, the Gold for Oil programme was presented as a game-changer that would stabilise the cedi and reduce fuel costs by swapping gold for petroleum products.
Cudjoe, however, argued that behind the bold promises was “a rerouted dollar sale, gold turned into cash, cash handed to chosen players, and a market tilted in favor of the state’s own importer.”
He pointed out that when the Bank of Ghana suspended the programme on March 3, 2025, and fully exited ten days later, the market did not collapse as many had feared.
“If this programme was meant to save the cedi and calm prices, why did nothing collapse when the Bank of Ghana suspended it? Because the magic was never in the model. The magic was in the marketing,” he stressed.
Cudjoe accused the NPP government of replacing transparent foreign exchange auctions with “private corridors where chosen hands received dollars and the public received slogans.”
He cited the central bank’s own records showing massive exchange rate losses, and noted that civil groups had documented irregularities cargo by cargo. “Yet, instead of evidence, the public was served insults. That is not policy failure alone; it is betrayal of trust,” he stated.
He criticised the lack of transparency in tax collection and logistics, alleging that “cargoes slipped from port to depot with paperwork missing” while exemptions “became permanent amnesia downstream.” According to him, BOST’s dominant role blurred reconciliations and allowed leakages to balloon.
Addressing claims that the programme brought stability, he argued, “Stability is not secrecy. Stability that arrives wrapped in off-book deals and unexplained spreads is the kind that robs the present and mortgages the future.
If G4O truly delivered value, then open the books: show the dates, volumes, rates, and fees. Compare side door forex to auction rates. Show us who got what, when, and why.”
Cudjoe urged citizens, civil society, and state institutions not to let the issue fade with the end of the programme. “Citizens must resist fatigue.
The goal of elaborate ceremony is simple, keep you applauding while money moves. The antidote is equally simple, follow the paper,” he advised.
He outlined three steps for accountability: a forensic audit of both the gold and oil legs of the programme, recovery of any unlawfully obtained exemptions or revenues, and reforms to close loopholes in forex allocation and procurement. “Deterrence is built on systems, not press releases,” he insisted.
Cudjoe drew a sharp contrast between the Gold for Oil programme and GoldBod, which focuses on strengthening Ghana’s gold sector. “Gold for Oil was a financing gimmick dressed as alchemy. One is industrial policy; the other was performance art,” he wrote.
Ending his statement, he called for responsible leadership and institutional integrity. “Ghana is capable of adult governance, rules, records, reconciliation, results.
Capable of leaders who respect citizens enough to show their work. If the architects of this scheme are confident, they should welcome an audit like a righteous man welcomes daylight,” he said.
“To the NPP: if you meant well, prove it. To the Auditor General, Parliament, the OSP, GRA, and the courts: do your jobs in public view. To the media: follow the ledger, not the podium. To citizens: keep asking for receipts,” he concluded.
“The Gold for Oil programme may be dead, but the wounds it left are fresh. The truth is still owed. And the cost of silence will only rise if we let the burial be the end of the story.”
